Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Sidney Herbert, Baronet, late Member for the Borough of Westminster, Abbey Division, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order (Tollesbury and West Mersea) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will request the Secretary of the League of Nations to publish the terms of the letter of appreciation and good will addressed by the Government of the United States to that office at Geneva recently concerning the technical organisations of the League?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I understand that full facilities were afforded by the Secretariat-General of the League of Nations to representatives of the Press at Geneva to give publicity to the letter of 2nd February, 1939, from the United States Secretary of State to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Extracts from the letter appeared in many organs of the British Press on 23rd February.

Mr. Mander: In view of the importance of this letter, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to place a copy

of it in the Library or circulate it in some way?

Mr. Butler: If it is for the convenience of the House I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking immediate steps to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Government with a view to definite arrangements being entered into between Great Britain, France, and Soviet Russia for joint action in restraint of aggression, and of associating with such arrangements Poland, Rumania, Jugoslavia, Turkey, Holland, Denmark, and other peaceful nations willing to co-operate?

Captain Plugge: asked the Prime Minister whether he will convene in London a meeting of the representatives of all the chief democratic Powers to discuss joint action, in view of possible European developments?

Major Stourton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement with regard to progress made with Powers with whom His Majesty's Government have been in communication, with a view to exploring the possibilities of joint action towards checking aggression in South-Eastern Europe?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked to reply. As the Prime Minister said in the House on 20th March, His Majesty's Government are in communication with other Governments.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have under consideration the possibility of calling a special meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?

Sir S. Hoare: The Government are considering all these possibilities, but I think the hon. Member had better wait until the Prime Minister makes a full statement.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an impression has been created, for which I hope there is no foundation, that the Government intend to do very little in deeds though they may in words?

Sir S. Hoare: I am sorry that the hon. Member should make any suggestion of that kind. There is no foundation for it at all.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government are treating this matter as one of the greatest possible urgency?

Sir S. Hoare: I should have thought that is obvious to everybody.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered approaching the Turkish Government with a view to an agreement for the passage of naval forces into the Black Sea in the event of a threat to the integrity and independence of Rumania?

Mr. Butler: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated on Monday in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), the whole situation is at present under review by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Price: Will the Government bear in mind the immense importance of the Straits in the event of a threat to the independence of Rumania?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that such an important question as that will be borne in mind.

Captain Plugge: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Minister at Bucharest has reported on the alleged German demand that Rumania should become a purely agricultural country and dispose of all her products to Germany, in which case she will be allowed to retain her independence; and, if not, whether he will inquire as to what the facts are?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the situation in Rumania?

Sir S. Hoare: Negotiations between the Governments of Germany and Rumania on economic matters have been in progress for some time past. The Rumanian Government has officially denied that there has been any ultimatum from the German Government in the course of these negotiations. At the same time the uncertainty of the present situation has caused the Rumanian Government to take certain precautionary measures.

Mr. Mander: Are not all these German ultimatums denied until annexation has taken place?

Mr. Leach: Has the present temporary transference of Foreign Office questions to the Home Office any significance?

Sir S. Hoare: None whatever.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does not the denial of an ultimatum apply to the form rather than to the substance of the question of the hon. Member?

Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusion from my answer.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is it true that these negotiations have been broken off?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that the German Mission has returned to Berlin.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give the House as to the nature of the proposals put forward by the German Government in these trade negotiations? Were they of such a nature as to reduce Rumania to an economic colony of Germany?

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether staff talks are yet taking place with any of the following countries with a view to coordinating defence of those countries and our own against aggression, namely: France, Russia, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Jugoslavia, Rumania, Turkey and Greece?

Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. On the subject of staff talks with France, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave in the course of the Debate on 21st February last. With regard to the other countries mentioned in the question, contacts are maintained through the normal channel of service attachés.

Colonel Wedgwood: Do I understand that the change in the situation has not induced the Government to have any staff conversations with any of these countries, or is the matter still being hung up, because of the Government's inability to make up their mind?

Mr. Munro: I shall convey the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will initiate staff talks, both economic and military, with the United States of America concerning the supply they can make to this country and our allies in case of war being forced upon us?

Mr. Munro: No, Sir.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is this also an example of the inability of the Government to face the situation? Why are no arrangements being come to with America in connection with supplies in the event of war?

Mr. Munro: That is quite another question.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the European situation?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no special statement to make on the situation in Central Europe.
As regards Memel, I understand that the Lithuanian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was recently in Berlin, received while there a demand from the German Government for the immediate cession of the Memelland to the Reich, coupled with a threat that in the event of any resistance or any application for support elsewhere, the matter would no longer be dealt with diplomatically, but in a military sense. This demand amounted to an ultimatum and the Lithuanian Government were required to take a decision on it within approximately four days; but they were assured that if it were accepted no further demands would be made of them. I also understand that this demand has now been accepted, though I have not been so informed officially by the Lithuanian Government, who have made no approach to His Majesty's Government since the demand was presented to them.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Home Secretary say when the Prime Minister will be in a position to make a fuller statement to the House?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I cannot give a definite answer to-day, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is very anxious to make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise the great anxiety there is and

the need for speed in this matter, and also the importance of a statement being made in this House, and not outside this House?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, Sir, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of those two things.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: In view of the fact that His Majesty's Government was a signatory to the Memel Convention of 1924, may I ask whether it is proposed to take any action by way of protest or otherwise?

Sir S. Hoare: I should prefer to make no further statement to-day. I am fully aware of the statutory position of His Majesty's Government, but I think that had better await the fuller statement that the Prime Minister intends to make.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that at Munich Herr Hitler assured the Prime Minister that he had no intention of interfering in any way with the future of Memel, and is it not the case that the term "thrice perjured" is rather out of date?

Mr. J. Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about a report that the Lithuanian Government are about to apply to Russia for protection for the remainder of their territory?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I have no information on the last point. As to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), an assurance of that kind certainly was given, and that is one of the subjects which will, no doubt, come up for discussion when there is a fuller Debate.

Mr. Benn: Are there any alterations at all in the arrangements for Colonel Beck's visit?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that the German Government threatened Lithuania with the occupation by military force of the whole of Lithuanian territory?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that they were informed that military action would otherwise be taken; but at the same time I would wish to say that we have no official information on the subject from the Lithuanian Government or from any other Government, and I think, therefore, I had better not be drawn into any further details until we receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC VISAS.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister to which embassies or legations in London were granted the greatest number of diplomatic visas for the year ended 28th February, 1939; and whether there is any limit to the number of such visas that are granted to any one embassy or legation?

Mr. Butler: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same number of visas are reciprocal for His Majesty's representatives in these countries?

Mr. Butler: I was asked about the number of visas granted to embassies in London, and I have answered that question.

Following is the answer:

The greatest number of diplomatic visas were, during the year ended 28th February, 1939, granted in response to requests from the Japanese, United States, German and Soviet embassies, the numbers of visas granted being respectively 59, 47, 41 and 34. There is no restriction upon the numbers of diplomatic visas granted to persons entitled to receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister what steps, other than military preparations, His Majesty's Government pro pose to take in the near future which would not simply safeguard British interests but encourage and enable other Powers to enter into equitable, political and economic co-operation, with a view to eliminating unnecessary rivalry, suspicion and isolation, and promoting through the League of Nations or other wise, general confidence, security and resistance among peace-loving Powers?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will watch for an opportunity of promoting the course of action suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that the Government recognise that only on the basis stated in the question can a really peaceful and co-operative world be built?

Mr. Butler: I have said that we are looking for an opportunity to promote the course of action which the hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether representations have been, or will be, made by His Majesty's Government to the German Government with a view to obtaining facilities for emigration for citizens of Czecho-Slovakia whose lives and liberty may be now in danger; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps, in co-operation with other Governments, to give special facilities to such refugees to find asylum elsewhere?

Sir S. Hoare: Representations have been made urgently by His Majesty's Government to the German Government requesting that there should be no obstacles placed in the way of the departure of all those refugees whose names appeared on the British lists. His Majesty's Government are giving urgent consideration to all practical possibilities of co-operation with other Governments in this connection.

Colonel Nathan: May I ask whether the visa system applies to refugees in Czecho-Slovakia?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no formal delays will be allowed to hold up the departure of refugees of this kind.

Mr. Riley: May I ask whether since the entry of Germany into Czecho-Slovakia there has been delay in emigrants coming away?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot give an answer without notice.

Mr. Gallacher: What about British newspaper representatives who are now in Czecho-Slovakia?

Hon. Members: "The Daily Worker?"

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the position of British subjects who have taken refuge in the British Legation at Prague and tell us anything about the possibility of their getting away?

Sir S. Hoare: That is a different question, and I cannot answer it without notice.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the report that there are already 20,000 Czechs in concentration camps? If it is true, will be make urgent and energetic protests in Berlin against it?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has now been taken by His Majesty's Government as to the diplomatic status of the Czecho-Slovak representatives in London?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether members of the Czech Legation in London and Czech Consuls in Great Britain will continue to enjoy the status and privileges accorded to them before the German usurpation in Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have decided that for the time being the position of the Czecho-Slovak Chargé d'Affaires, the diplomatic members of his staff, and Czecho-Slovak consular officials in this country shall remain as before.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister the date and the nature of the communication recently made to His Majesty's Government by the French Foreign Minister concerning the possibility of German action in Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government and the French Government have been in close contact about all reports concerning the development of the situation in Central Europe including among others reports of the possibility of German action against Czecho-Slovakia. I am not in a position to say at what moment any particular report may have been brought to my Noble Friend's notice.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to a question last week he said that he would inquire whether a communication was made to the French Foreign Minister on nth March. Has the right hon. Gentleman since inquired into that matter?

Mr. Butler: I always try to inquire into questions I say that I will inquire into, but I cannot make public diplo-

matic exchanges between us and the French Government.

Mr. Mathers (for Mr. Neil Maclean): asked the Prime Minister whether the Ambassador at Berlin has given a satisfactory explanation of the lack of knowledge of Germany's intentions to annex Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on Monday, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether General Franco's Government have been invited by the Council of the League or otherwise to become members of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: Spain is a member of the League of Nations, and there is no question of a special invitation being required.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the recent recognition, does the Minister think there is any possibility of the newly recognised Government becoming in the near future a member of the peace group against aggression?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer for another Government. I have said that Spain is a member of the League of Nations.

Mr. Davidson: Is the newly recognised Government carrying on the commitments of the Spanish Government, who were members of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Mander: Is it clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that Franco's Government is now in the full sense a member of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: Spain is a member of the League of Nations. That is all I can say.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CUBA.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Anglo-Cuban Trade Agreement was


negotiated before or after the International Sugar Agreement; when each agreement was ratified by the respective Governments and when they expire; whether the former agreement provides that there shall be no increase in the sugar preference for Dominion or Colonial sugar over Cuban sugar; and what were the advantages gained by Great Britain in return for this undertaking?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): The Anglo-Cuban Commercial Agreement was negotiated before the International Sugar Agreement. The former agreement was signed on 19th February, 1937, and ratifications were exchanged on 10th September, 1938. The agreement remains in force until 31st July next and, if not terminated on that date, will remain in force subject to denunciation on three months' notice. The International Sugar Agreement was signed on 6th May, 1937, and ratified by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on 27th August, 1937. The agreement runs for five years and may be continued thereafter by agreement. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part does not, therefore, arise.

Table showing the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade with Cuba during each of the years 1928 to 1938.


Year.
Total Imports consigned from Cuba.
Exports consigned to Cuba.


United Kingdom Produce and Manufactures.
Imported Merchandise.







£000
£000
£000


1928
…
…
…
…
10,240
1,649
44


1929
…
…
…
…
7,934
2,027
54


1930
…
…
…
…
6,874
1,283
32


1931
…
…
…
…
4,292
656
19


1932
…
…
…
…
5,334
701
23


1933
…
…
…
…
4,280
596
8


1934
…
…
…
…
3,768
919
10


1935
…
…
…
…
3,759
874
18


1936
…
…
…
…
5,249
1,019
14


1937
…
…
…
…
4,520
1,410
18


1938
…
…
…
…
4,963
849
14

Note.—The figures for 1938 are provisional.

RUMANIA (COMMERCIAL MISSION).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the official representatives of His Majesty's Government in Rumania to

Mr. R. Gibson: Do these particular agreements cover sugar molasses as well as sugar?

Mr. Cross: I think the hon. Gentleman had better refer to the text of the agreements.

Captain Evans: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to place copies of the agreements in the Library?

Mr. Cross: I think they are obtainable in the ordinary way—Command Paper 5383.

Captain A. Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the exports from Cuba to the United Kingdom, and from the United Kingdom to Cuba for the years 1928 to 1938 inclusive, with particular reference to those years during which the Anglo-Cuban Trade Agreement has been in operation?

Mr. Cross: The Commercial Agreement between the United Kingdom and Cuba came into operation as recently as September, 1938. As the desired particulars of United Kingdom trade with Cuba involve a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

consult with the Rumanian Government before the arrival of the British trade delegation, with a view to arranging that supplies of oil will be available over the next few years to this country as in previous years?

Mr. Butler: The Rumanian Government axe aware that His Majesty's Government wish exports of petroleum products from Rumania to this country to be maintained. This is one of the questions which will, it is hoped, be discussed between the British commercial mission and the Rumanian authorities.

Mr. MacMillan: Are any special steps being taken to protect this trade in order to guarantee in the present international situation military protection?

Mr. Butler: That raises a broader question, and I must refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement on the matter.

BRITISH AND GERMAN INDUSTRIAL GROUPS (NEGOTIATIONS).

Colonel Nathan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action on the part of His Majesty's Government is contemplated by the projected agreement between British and German industrialists; and whether or not it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that the matter should proceed?

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Anglo- German Trade Agreement, signed last week by delegations of the Federation of British Industries and the Reichsgruppe Industrie; and whether, as this agreement is a contravention of the Anglo-American Trade Agreement, he will consider cancelling the Anglo-German Trade Agreement as contrary to the public policy of this country?

Mr. Cross: I would refer to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins).

Colonel Nathan: Is the hon. Member able to state what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter, as asked in the second part of my question?

Mr. Cross: The whole matter is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend at the present time, and he is meeting representatives of the Federation of British Industries this afternoon.

Colonel Nathan: If I put down another question on this subject in a week's time,

will the hon. Gentleman then be able to state the policy of His Majesty's Government in this particular matter?

Mr. Cross: I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member a definite answer, but if he will put a question down, he will get an answer.

Mr. G. Strauss: Are negotiations proceeding in Germany at the moment, and, if so, is it with the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Cross: I cannot tell the hon. Member whether negotiations are proceeding between a particular British industry, which I think is the point of his question, and its opposite number in Germany at present—I should require notice of that question—but as he is aware, discussions between the Reichsgruppe Industrie and the Federation of British Industries have been completed.

HOSIERY (IMPORTS).

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Parker): asked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the imports of hosiery from Italy and Japan into this country in each of the last two years; what percentage this has been above the quota fixed by the relevant trade organisations; and will he take steps by prohibition or the imposition of a quota to prevent this country from being flooded by dumped hosiery in the future?

Mr. Cross: Under an agreement between the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations and the Japanese Exporters' Association, which came into operation on 1st March, 1937, imports of cotton and wool footwear from Japan were to be limited to 700,000 dozen pairs a year and imports of other cotton and wool hosiery to 1,000,000 dozen. The former figure was subsequently revised to 623,000 dozen pairs for the second year because of excess imports in the first year. There is, so far as I know, no agreement relating to the quantity of imports of hosiery from Italy. During the 12 months ended 28th February, 1938 and 1939, the actual imports of cotton and wool footwear from Japan were 854,000 and 699,000 dozen pairs and from Italy 21,000 and 75,000 dozen pairs, respectively. I understand that discussions will take place between the parties to the agreement regarding any necessary adjustment of the figure of imports of footwear


during the third year. The imports of other hosiery were substantially below the agreed figures. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not consider that any action on his part is called for.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how this has affected the hosiery manufacturers in this country?

Mr. Cross: Presumably favourably, because they have made the arrangements themselves.

Mr. Lyons: May I ask my hon. Friend, first, whether the agreement made by the Japanese Association has, in fact, been kept, or whether they are well in advance of the exports which they agreed to limit; and, second, whether, in view of the figures my hon. Friend has given, this is not a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to take up on their own initiative as provided by the Act which established that body?

Mr. Cross: The Japanese did not keep strictly to the agreement, and adjustments are being made in subsequent years to meet that situation. In regard to the second part of the question, the whole advantage which the Japanese got in this agreement is an undertaking that no application will be made for an increased duty while the agreement is in force, and the Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers consider that this agreement is far more favourable than making an application for an import duty.

Mr. Lyons: Can my hon. Friend say how long the agreement is for?

Mr. Cross: I understand it is going on for another year, but I should like notice of the question.

Captain Strickland: Is my hon. Friend aware that this hosiery is dumped here and sold at prices below the cost of production in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

ACCIDENTS, AERODROMES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the recent fatal accident at an aerodrome, he will publish figures of accidents at aerodromes due to propellers or otherwise;

and whether he is considering the issuing of regulations to prevent or minimise the possibility of such accidents?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Since January, 1934, four people have been killed at civil aerodromes by revolving airscrews, and seven injured. In all cases except one the accident would appear to have been due to momentary thoughtlesness or the neglect of normal precautions. The danger of a revolving airscrew would appear to be so well known that the issue of regulations on the subject has not hitherto been considered necessary, but my right hon. Friend has given instructions for the question to be reviewed.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that in that consideration it will be possible to consider providing some kind of simple guard round the propeller when the aircraft is on the ground?

Captain Balfour: That raises considerable technical difficulties, but, nevertheless, it shall be examined when we deal with the matter.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is it not a fact that already there are several regulations in force to avoid these accidents?

Captain Balfour: There are regulations in force with regard to the Royal Air Force, but there are no regulations in force with regard to civil aircraft.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Were those four casualties due to the failure to observe the regulations in force?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. As I said in the answer, they were "due to momentary thoughtlessness or the neglect of normal precautions."

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman issue a report on this question when it has been considered?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir, but I will let the hon. Member know.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will, in the near future, set up a committee of inquiry into the possibility of establishing a Government civil air service for Scotland?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The establishment of further civil air services for Scotland is a matter for operating companies subject to licence by the Air Transport Licensing Authority, which recently sat in Edinburgh for the purpose of hearing applications for licences by existing companies and any intending new operators in Scotland.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction with regard to Scottish air services, and will his Department keep in mind the fact that geographical factors in Scotland make civil air services necessary, and that they can be made profitable, too?

Captain Balfour: Unfortunately, air services in Scotland have hitherto not been found to be very profitable to those undertaking them. We have given assistance by way of internal subsidies and in other ways, and if only those in the more remote geographical parts of Scotland would travel more by air, it might be easier to run the air services.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not a fact that it is almost impossible for a person who has not a high income to take advantage of the air services where they do operate, such as in the Western Isles?

Captain Balfour: The fundamental trouble is the operational cost of aeroplanes to-day.

Mr. R. Gibson: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that every individual route must be on a remunerative basis before the Government will put it into operation?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The Government do not operate routes, and indeed, far from their having to be remunerative, the Government spend £100,000 in subsidies to internal lines in Scotland and England, and provide a large measure of ground organisation.

Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how his Department got over that fundamental trouble with regard to Imperial Airways?

Captain Balfour: By a subsidy.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

TRAINING ESTABLISHMENT SITE, WILTSHIRE.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the protests from municipal, agricultural and archaeological authorities, against the waste of public money involved in abandoning Yatesbury Camp after spending £380,000 upon it, and also against spending further large sums upon another site on an agricultural plateau which forefronts some of the finest down-land scenery and is of historic interest; and whether he will reconsider the whole matter?

Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend has received objections against the proposal to remove in due course the training establishment temporarily located at Yatesbury, but he is unable to accept the suggestion that this will involve an unnecessary waste of public money. It was necessary to establish, as a matter of great urgency, a training establishment adjacent to an existing aerodrome, and Yatesbury was considered the most suitable site available and in any case, therefore, it would have been necessary to provide the accommodation in the first instance in temporary buildings. Very strong representations were made, however, against the permanent establishment of a Royal Air Force station at Yatesbury, and after giving full consideration to these my right hon. Friend decided to vacate the site if possible within four years.
In regard to the other site to which my hon. Friend refers, this is required to accommodate other establishments in addition to the training establishment which it is proposed eventually to transfer from Yatesbury. The acquisition of this site was also the subject of strong representations, which have been most carefully considered, but my right hon. Friend reached the conclusion that the site referred to was the only practicable one, and he is not, therefore, able to alter his decision.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it not a fact that, according to the highest opinion in Wiltshire, Yatesbury Camp is quite capable of the enlargement desired, and that this removal is a great waste of public money?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. I could not accept that, for the reasons I have given at some length in the answer.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is it not a fact that the second site suggested is in defiance of the town plan by which the owner has dedicated it for all time as an open space?

Captain Balfour: Both sites were, unfortunately, open to objection by public bodies and certain local residents and property owners, but my right hon. Friend has weighed up the matter very carefully and has come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, the objections to the Wroughton site must be over-ruled in the light of national necessity, as indeed is necessary in so many cases.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not a fact that this is not a case of mere national necessity, but a case of cutting across a national arrangement and an undertaking with regard to an open space?

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to the additional production of aeroplanes, the full capacity for the sub-contract work in aeroplane production on the North-East Coast is being taken advantage of?

Captain Balfour: It is the policy of my right hon. Friend to spread sub-contracting work on aircraft production as far as possible, and it is the case that a considerable amount of such work is already being carried out in the North-East Coast area. If my hon. Friend is aware of suitable capacity which is now available, my right hon. Friend would be glad to be furnished with particulars.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether a full and complete,survey of all available works that can take up this work has been made?

Captain Balfour: We have made as many inquiries and obtained as much information as possible. We have now got a Director of Sub-Contracting in the Production Department at the Air Ministry, and if the hon. and learned Member knows of any facilities of which we are unaware, I should be only too glad to be told of them.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the necessity of producing more aeroplanes, full advantage is being taken of the services of available executive personnel with experience of mass aeroplane production?

Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that full use is not being made at the present time of personnel with executive experience of large-scale production of modern aircraft. If, however, my hon. Friend has any further suggestions in that connection my right hon. Friend would be glad to receive particulars.

Miss Ward: May I take it that if I send the names of some suitable people, the Air Ministry will make arrangements to see them?

Captain Balfour: Naturally, my right hon. Friend will be glad to receive particulars of any one who is suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (INDIANS, FRANCHISE).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will see that due consideration is given to the demand of the Ceylon Indian Association for eight seats for Indians in a Council of 68, for the grant of the franchise to Indians on a basis of five years' residence, and for an inquiry by the Parliamentary Committee?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As I have made clear in my despatch of 10th November, which has been presented to Parliament, I am awaiting the completion of the debate in the State Council of Ceylon before giving further consideration to these matters. I can assure the hon. Member that the suggestions to which he refers will be given due consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the investigation and promotion of schemes for the settlement of German-Jewish refugees in Tanganyika, in accordance with the Government announcement on the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have nothing to add at present to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 8th February.

Mr. Mander: Is it still the policy of the Government to settle German Jews in Tanganyika, if possible?

Mr. MacDonald: As I said in my previous answer, this matter has now been remitted to the Refugees Committee, and we are awaiting their comments before proceeding with the matter.

Mr. Mander: That does not answer my question. Is it still the policy of the Government to settle German Jews, if possible, in Tanganyika, as was suggested by the Prime Minister?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a matter on which there has to be agreement between the Government and the voluntary organisations. As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, there is no alteration to be made in the previous statement.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Government plans, as soon as preliminaries can be arranged, to establish within the Empire a new home for European refugees on a scale adequate to the necessity?

Sir S. Hoare: This question is an international one, not confined to the Empire, and an international body, namely, the London Inter-Governmental Committee has been set up to continue and develop the work of the Evian Meeting and is constantly engaged in exploring the possibility of settlement in all countries represented on the Committee.

Mr. Hannah: Would it not be of immense help, both to the refugees and to the people who consider them undesirable citizens, if we were willing to do this work on a really adequate scale?

Sir S. Hoare: I think we are very anxious to do our full part.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the arrangements for the settlement of refugees are proceeding according to plan and to the satisfaction of the Government?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not give so general an answer as to say "Yes" to a question of that kind, but we are doing our best with the two schemes with which we are most directly concerned, namely, the schemes for settlement in Northern Rhodesia, and inquiries are actually taking place at this moment on the spot.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: In view of the fact that Governments since the War have found much difficulty in arranging for the organised settlement of British migrants, is it not apparent that these things cannot be done at a moment's notice and without a very great deal of preparatory work?

Sir S. Hoare: That certainly is so. None the less, my hon. and gallant Friend will, I think, agree that it is a very urgent question, and that the sooner we can make some settlement the better.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTIC (BRITISH TERRITORY).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the announcements by various Governments of annexation, or proposed annexation, of vast areas in the Antarctic, he will define the present limits of British territory in the Antarctic and the area of land involved?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

There are three areas of British territory in the Antarctic, administered by His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, in New Zealand, and in the Commonwealth of Australia, respectively.

The United Kingdom sector consists of the Falkland Islands Dependencies as defined by the Letters Patent of 28th March, 1917, namely including:
''all islands and territories whatsoever between 20th degree of west longitude and the 50th degree of west longitude which are situated south of the 50th parallel of south latitude; and all islands and territories whatsoever between the 50th degree of west longitude and the 80th degree of west longitude which are situated south of the 58th parallel of south latitude.

The New Zealand sector, which is known as the Ross Dependency, is defined by an Order in Council of 30th July, 1923, as


all the islands and territories between the 160th degree of east longitude and the 150th degree of west longitude which are situated south of the 60th degree of south latitude

The Australian sector is defined by an Order in Council of 7th February, 1933, as comprising
all the islands and territories other than Adélie Land which are situated south of the 60th degree of south latitude and lying between the 160th degree of east longitude and the 45th degree of east longitude.

It is impossible to state with any accuracy the total area of land in these territories in view of the fact that the Antarctic Continent is constantly under snow and ice, is only partly explored, and it is difficult to say with any exactiture where the land finishes and ice begins.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to when it is proposed to issue in Palestine the new Road Transport Ordinance and Highway Code for that country?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am afraid that it is not possible to say when the Palestine Government will be in a position to enact legislation amending the Road Transport Ordinance or to issue the projected Highway Code. Further consideration of these matters has had to be deferred until normal conditions are restored in Palestine.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that full use is not made of the facilities offered by the Colonial Development Fund for assistance in the various Dependencies, he will bring to the notice of the appropriate Governments the opportunities available for help for which the fund provides?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Governments of the Colonial Dependencies are well aware of the opportunities of help afforded by the Colonial Development Fund, and I do not think that a further general notification on the subject would serve any useful purpose. The attention of in-

dividual Governments is, however, called from time to time, as occasion offers, to the desirability of asking for assistance for particular projects.

Mr. Bellenger: As I assume the purpose of this fund is one which meets with the right hon. Gentleman's approval, may I ask whether he will take any further steps to see that that purpose is fully implemented?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member's assumption is correct, and my answer said I did not think it necessary to take any general action in order to notify Colonial Governments of this matter. We do take action very often in particular cases.

Mr. Bellenger: Then, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take any particular action?

Mr. MacDonald: If occasion arises we always do take particular action and we shall continue to do so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are the facilities offered by the fund available to the South African Protectorates?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. The fund does extend to the Protectorates.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amounts provided in the Estimates for the 12 months ended the last convenient date, for the maintenance of the Kenya Defence Force?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Will the figures include the supplementary votes?

Mr. MacDonald: The figures I am giving are the Estimates for the current year.

Following is the answer:

I assume that the question relates to all the Defence Forces maintained by the Government of Kenya. The sums provided in the 1939 Estimates are as follow:

(a) King's African Rifles, Northern Brigade:
£
£


Recurrent
150.045



Extraordinary
26,019





176,064


(b) Coastal Defence Unit:


Recurrent
9,138



Extraordinary
150





9,288


(c) Local Forces (i.e., Kenya Regiment (Territorial Force) and Kenya Defence Force):




Recurrent
12,660



Extraordinary
9,653





22,313




207,665


These figures represent the gross expenditure in each case. Under (a) 38.7 per cent. is reimbursed to Kenya by the Government of Uganda thus reducing the Kenya net expenditure to.
107,927


Under (b) the Governments of Uganda and Zanzibar reimburse 57 per cent., leaving Kenya to find
3,995


Under (c) the Uganda Government has agreed to reimburse 38.7 per cent. of the expenditure on the Kenya Regiment (Territorial Force), thereby reducing the net expenditure on Local Forces to approximately
17,343


Total net expenditure
129,265

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Church of England was disestablished and gradually disendowed in Jamaica in 1870, and the government of the Church placed on the voluntary principle; and whether the statement of the Governor of Jamaica on 14th February, 1939, emphasising the interdependence of the Church and the State indicates a change of policy in this respect?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second part is in the negative.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the Governor of Jamaica made a statement to the effect indicated; and will he take steps to prevent statements of that kind which are irresponsible and -without relation to the actual situation?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think there was anything in the Governor's statement which would lead to the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of the International Sugar Agreement provide for sugar-producing British Colonies to enjoy an increased quota as a result of the United Kingdom beet-sugar crop being considerably reduced, or whether foreign producers automatically benefit by a fall in United Kingdom production; and whether he will propose an amendment to the agreement whereby in the event of either the United Kingdom, Dominion, or Colonial quota of sugar-production falling below their allotted figure, this export surplus is allocated to British producers wherever situated on a basis to be determined by the British Government, having particular regard to the claims of the West Indies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Under the terms of the International Sugar Agreement it is impossible to increase Colonial or Dominion quotas by reason of the United Kingdom crop being less than the maximum laid down in the agreement. This was one of the definite understandings on which the agreement was concluded, and I am advised that there is no prospect that any alteration in the provision could be agreed.

Mr. Leach: From where does the actual sugar come in this case?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS (POLICE FORCES).

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that German subjects in the mandated territory of the British Cameroons out-number the British subjects by three to one, he will consider the advisability of increasing the police forces in that territory?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Secretary of Slate for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the respective military strengths of the one company of the Royal West African Frontier Force and of the German catapult ship stationed at Bathurst, Gambia; and will he, in view of the great strategic importance of that Colony, consider the advisability of reinforcing the British garrison there?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The German personnel of the catapult ship according to recent information totals 37, the shore staff seven, and the stand-by aircraft crew five. These are not military forces. The strength of the garrison at Bathurst, which is at present three officers and 100 other ranks, is a matter which comes periodically under review with that of other garrisons in West Africa.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the great potentialities of the Colony of Gambia are at present circum scribed by the production of the single crop of groundnuts; and whether the Government will give their attention to the development of this Colony on more enterprising lines?

Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that the only significant export crop of the Gambia is groundnuts, which is the most suitable cash crop for this Dependency, but a variety of other products is produced for internal consumption. I am always ready to consider suggestions for other forms of production for export.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any initiative to deal with the depression in this Colony?

Mr. MacDonald: The matter has been under review by the Colonial Marketing Board, but beyond that there are no useful steps that we can contemplate at the present time.

Mr. R. Gibson: In neighbouring lands are not rubber and coconuts for copra being produced on an economic scale?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the concern of the heads of the medical and health services in Gambia

regarding the state of public health, as stated by the Governor in a recent speech, any steps are in view to improve the position?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will recollect that in the same speech to which he refers the Governor stated that, though much remains to be done, medical and health services have, in the past year, been maintained with very satisfactory results. The difficulty is to find the means to finance any considerable further development. Despite financial stringency, a larger provision than has ever been made before, amounting to nearly 20 per cent. of the total estimated revenue of the dependency, has been made in the Estimates for the current year.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is not this Colony in an almost perpetual state of financial stringency, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take some more enterprising action to develop its resources will it now fall into an ever-increasing state of depression?

Mr. MacDonald: I have given a good deal of thought to this matter. If the hon. Gentleman can suggest any other efforts that we have not considered I shall be very glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FACILITIES, WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider undertaking, with 100 per cent. grant assistance, the construction of a main west-coast road along the Highland sea-route linking Mallaig and Kyle of Lochalsh, etc., as an encouragement to the tourist industry in the north?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is quite unable to entertain the suggestion that he should make a 100 per cent. grant towards the cost of constructing a new road between Mallaig and Kyle of Lochalsh.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the Minister's repeated professions of interest in the development of the tourist industry in Scotland, may I ask whether he thinks there is any better way of promoting it


than by assistance from the Ministry of Transport for providing roads on the scale suggested?

Captain Hudson: I understand that the cost of such a road would be out of all proportion to its usefulness.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform me then, whether the Minister would be prepared to consider undertaking a substantial percentage of the cost?

Captain Hudson: I think the hon. Member had better put that question down.

ROAD SCHEME, SOUTH UIST.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to state when work on the crofter counties scheme roads in South Uist Island is to begin; how many local men will be employed, and for what period; and the final estimated cost of the work?

Captain Hudson: The county council have completed the survey of the Class I roads in the Island of South Uist, including Benbecula, but I am unable to say when the works will be put in hand. The approximate estimate of the cost of the scheme is £43,000, and it will give employment to about 80 men for a period of roughly 20 months.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the consideration of all these schemes was started about the same time in 1935, and that the other islands have got on well with their schemes, why is the South Uist scheme being kept back?

Captain Hudson: I do not think it is being done purposely. These schemes have to be carried out in some order.

STREET PLAYGROUNDS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Transport how many streets in the city of Liverpool have been scheduled as children's playgrounds to date and what number have been so scheduled since the passing of the Street Playgrounds Act, 1938?

Captain Hudson: I am informed that no applications have been received from Liverpool for confirmation of orders to enable roads to be used as playgrounds under the Street Playgrounds Act, 1938.

Mr. Kirby: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any reason why there is no application in respect of Liverpool?

Captain Hudson: The initiative with regard to making such orders rests on the council.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the traffic experience of Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America, since the introduction in that city of a strictly enforced speed limit of 25 miles per hour, which has resulted in a remarkable drop in the fatality rate; and whether he will consider taking similar measures in this country?

Captain Hudson: I have seen an account of this experiment. I am not aware whether a speed limit was previously imposed in Providence, but I do not think that a reduction of the present speed limit of 30 miles per hour in this country in built-up areas to 25 miles per hour would have similar results.

Mr. Leach: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not willing to take this step, which has had such good results in Providence, can he say whether a single effective measure has been taken by his Department up till now to reduce this English slaughter on the roads?

Captain Hudson: Yes, we are always taking steps.

Mr. Leach: Well, tell me one of them.

CABS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (COMMITTEE).

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take on the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Cabs and Private Hire Vehicles (Cmd. 5938)?

Captain Hudson: The recommendations which the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cabs and Private Hire Vehicles make in their interim report are at present receiving the consideration of the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend, who is not at present in a position to make an announcement as to any action which the Government may take in the matter.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it was tentatively promised that the report


should be issued before the last Recess, and having regard to the number of months Members were kept waiting for the committee to be set up, will he convey to the two gentlemen whom he has mentioned the need for expediting their decision?

Captain Hudson: I will certainly convey the hon. Member's remarks to my right hon. Friend, but I understand that there has not been any avoidable delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL REGISTER.

Major Stourton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the attitude of the German Government in South-Eastern Europe, which menaces the ultimate security of this country, he will now take immediate steps to introduce a National Register?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not satisfied that in present conditions the introduction of a complete National Register would add anything to the steps which are already being taken by His Majesty's Government for the security of this country.

Major Stourton: In view of the increased international tension, does not my right hon. Friend think that this measure is now overdue?

Sir S. Hoare: We are constantly watching the situation, and, as I say, we have not come to the conclusion that, in present conditions, a change is needed.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that before you can get a National Register, you will have to get rid of the Prime Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the in creasing disparity in economic conditions of the people of Scotland and England; and will he set up a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on this matter?

Sir S. Hoare: Recent unemployment figures do not bear out the suggestion in the first part of the question. The problem of areas in which economic prosperity is below the average is common to

England and Scotland; and is being considered by the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Industrial Population to which conditions in Scotland have been fully represented. In the circumstances I do not feel that there is any ground for the appointment of a Royal Commission as suggested in the second part of the question.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the representations which have been made to the Government with regard to economic conditions in Scotland, is legislation contemplated in the immediate future to remedy those conditions?

Sir S. Hoare: That is obviously another question and had better be put on the Paper.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures on which he based his previous answer?

Sir S. Hoare: I will look into the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion and see whether it is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARD LABOURERS, ROSYTH.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that many men employed at the Rosyth Dockyard as labourers have to travel between nine to twelve miles to work, this involving them in travelling expenses of 5s. to 6s. weekly; and whether it is possible for the dockyard authorities to provide lorries to take them to and from work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): It is not the practice for the Admiralty to provide special travelling facilities for workpeople in Admiralty establishments or to allow expenses incurred by them in travelling to and from their work.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that many contractors supply motor lorries to convey men to and from then-work, and would the Admiralty not follow this excellent example?

Mr. Shakespeare: I appreciate the difficulty, but it has never been our practice.

DOCKYARD MEN (RETENTION AFTER 60).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what percentage of men employed in the dockyards are retained after reaching the age of 60 years?

Mr. Shakespeare: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
Number of workmen reaching the age of 60 during 1938.
Number of workmen retained in employment beyond the age of 60.
Number of workmen entered in 1938 after discharge for age.


Established
…
545
189
—


Hired
…
599
178
—


Total
…
1,144
367
110

FLOATING DOCK, SINGAPORE (MAINTENANCE SERVICES).

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty particulars of the personnel permanently employed by the Admiralty in the maintenance services of the floating dock at Singapore, and the yearly cost of these services; and in what way, if any, these have been altered during the previous 12 months?

Mr. Shakespeare: I have made inquiries at Singapore for the information the hon. Member desires, but a reply has not yet been received. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Mr. Day: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the anti-malarial measures are completed?

Mr. Shakespeare: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHAFTESBURY HOMES.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the hon. Member for West Swansea, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he will consider the desirability of an inquiry into the management and finances of the Shaftesbury Homes?

Mr. Lewis Jones (Charity Commissioners): So far as the Commissioners are aware, the Shaftesbury Homes are responsible for the administration of property of three classes,

Mr. Gallacher: Do the figures not show the need for increasing the age to 65, so as to allow these men to continue working until they can get pensions?

Mr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the dockyards include torpedo factories?

Following is the reply:

namely (1) Moneys representing voluntary contributions; (2) Endowments applicable solely for educational purposes, and (3) Endowments applicable for charitable purposes not solely educational. Classes (1) and (2) are not within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners; consequently they have not power to hold any inquiry into the management of the homes so far as property or funds under those classes are concerned. If any complaint were received as to the administration of any endowment under class (3), the matter would be investigated. No such complaint has been received at present.

Sir W. Smithers: If I send my hon. Friend some criticisms that I have received, will he put them forward, as far as he can, in the right quarter?

Mr. Jones: I shall be very happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE).

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Health whether service in His Majesty's forces during the Great War will count towards the continuous period of non-contributory service referred to in Section 12 (6) of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937; and, if not, whether he will take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the ex-service men concerned benefit by the concession embodied in Section 12 (3) of the Act?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): By virtue of Section 12 (3)of the Act, it is only in the case of a person who left the employment of a local authority to serve in His Majesty's Forces during the late War, that a period of war service can be reckoned as service for the purposes of the Act. What my hon. Friend is referring to is the rarer case of employment, not with a local authority, but with an officer of a local authority, and in such a case the Sub-section does not apply. My right hon. Friend's predecessor consulted with the British Legion as to the terms of the Sub-section, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for reviewing the conclusion then reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — PACIFIC CONFERENCE, NEW ZEALAND.

Sir Hugh Seely: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the names of the United Kingdom representatives at the forthcoming Pacific Conference in New Zealand?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): The United Kingdom representatives will be:
The High Commissioner in New Zealand for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (Sir Harry Batterbee);
The High Commissioner for the Western Pacific (Sir Harry Luke);
Vice-Admiral Sir Ragnar Colvin (who will represent His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with the consent of His Majesty's Government in the Commonweath of Australia);
Major-General P. J. Mackesy; and Air-Marshal Sir Arthur Longmore.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUT-PRICE SHOPS.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of a magistrate to the effect that if the public would realise it, by patronising cut-price shops they are lending their assistance to criminal activities; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to cause some better supervision to be exercised over such establishments?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware of any recent statement of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The police are constantly watching for indications of criminal activities: but if the suggestion is that certain kinds of shops should be brought by legislation under special supervision or control, I can only say that I know of no sufficient grounds for such legislation.

Mr. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to control the more fatuous remarks of some magistrates?

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET COLLECTIONS, LONDON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary why a request made by the local organiser of the Leyton Joint Committee for Spanish Aid for permission to hold a street collection on 25th March on behalf of Spanish refugees was refused by the police; and why the police would give no reason for the refusal?

Sir S. Hoare: As the House is aware, endeavours have recently been made, in response to expressions of public opinion in this House and elsewhere, to reduce the number of street collections in London. The large charities, which have been holding street collections for years, have co-operated by amalgamating their appeals with the result that the number of days, on which the public are canvassed in the streets, has been greatly reduced. The number of applications, including applications for various local collections, is so large that some process of selection is inevitable, and the Commissioner, I understand, did not feel that it was possible to grant this application consistently with the general principles which must guide him in endeavouring to reduce within reasonable limits the number of street collections.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that such street collections have taken place in the Borough of Leyton, and in existing international circumstances does he not think it highly desirable to assist rather than discourage this charitable cause?

Sir S. Hoare: I am always anxious to see charitable efforts subscribed to for this excellent purpose, but in the matter of street collections we must draw the line. There is an advisory committee which considers all these applications, and I cannot alter my view as to this particular one.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT (OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITERS).

Mr. Hills (for Mr. Dobbie): asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that acute controversy has arisen in connection with the system of official shorthand writing set up in the Chancery and King's Bench Divisions in October, 1937, and that litigation is under consideration at the suit of various parties against the Association of Official Shorthand Writers, Limited; whether, to avert such litigation, he will set up a Select Committee to investigate the whole circumstances leading up to the agreement of August, 1937, between the Lord Chancellor, the Treasury, and the Association of Official Shorthand Writers, Limited; to inquire into the terms of agreement the Association of Official Shorthand Writers, Limited, has imposed upon its members; and into the constitution of that body?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware that any controversy has arisen in connection with the system of official shorthand writing to which the hon. Member refers, nor am I aware that litigation is under consideration against the Association of Official Shorthand Writers, Limited. My right hon. Friend sees no ground for the suggestion that a Select Committee should be appointed, such as the hon. Member proposes,

Mr. Hills (for Mr. Dobbie): asked the Attorney-General why the arrangement with the Association of Shorthand Writers was made; and whether he will lay the relevant documents upon the Table of the House?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The arrangement entered into with the Association of Shorthand Writers resulted from a recommendation contained in the report of a committee presided over by Mr. Justice Atkinson (Cmd. 5395), which was presented to Parliament in March, 1937. This is, strictly speaking, the only document relevant to the reason why the arrangement was entered into.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON PRODUCTION.

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Parker): asked the Minister of Agriculture how many bacon factories there are at present; what their aggregate curing capacity is; and what proportions of this total fall into different classes according to throughput or capacity?

Captain Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Bacon Development Board that the number of curing premises licensed under the Bacon Industry Act, 1938, is 582. Precise information as to the aggregate curing capacity of these premises is not available, but it has been estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 pigs per annum. It is not possible to state what proportions of this aggregate capacity are accounted for by the different classes, but the numbers of premises in each class are as follow:

Class A premises (premises on which, in any one of the years 1935, 1936 or 1937, more than 5,200 cwt. of bacon was produced)
88


Class B premises (other licensed premises, except small curers' premises)
253


Small curers' premises (maximum production, 60 cwt. in any four consecutive weeks)
241

Mr. Gibson: Do those figures apply only to England or to the whole of Great Britain?

Captain Dugdale: I understand they apply to Great Britain.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Hospital District)Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hastings) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leyton) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton Extension) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate the Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes and to vest in them the properties formerly vested in The Trustees for Wesleyan Methodist Chapel Purposes (Registered) or in The Trustees for United Methodist Church Purposes Registered; and for other purposes." [Methodist Church Bill [Lords.]

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (RESTRICTIONS ON BANKING ACCOUNTS,) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"
This is the urgent Bill which I mentioned to the House at Question Time a day or two ago. As the House knows, it arises from action which we have asked the banking institutions to take, and, I think, is generally approved by the sense of the House. The Bill is a very simple one and does nothing more than validate the compliance with the requests that have been made to banks and to holders of gold, or securities which they are holding, on Czecho-Slovakian account. The House will, no doubt, remember that I informed hon. Members of the communication we made to the Bank of England in that respect, and I think it was later in the week that I was able to inform them that we had also communicated in the same sense with the joint stock banks and other financial institutions in order to block transfers which otherwise might be called for from this country to Czecho-Slovakia.
The action which we then asked for has been universally complied with, and we have no case in which any objection has been raised. On the other hand, as the House will understand, the authority of Parliament is needed before the action which we asked them to take could become valid, and those institutions are naturally entitled to have from Parliament—if Parliament is prepared to give its approval—the authority which will make their action unchallengeable; and if there be any case in which they could be held responsible this Bill will afford them an adequate indemnity. I do not anticipate that there will be any case for an indemnity, because if we alter the law of this country on a subject of that sort it would appear to me that these institutions would have a perfectly good answer to anybody who claimed the transfer of the property they held.
That is the whole object of this Bill, because it is not possible to go further

than that and to settle details at the moment. This is a very complicated business and will require close examination, no doubt both as regards what we owe to Czecho-Slovakia and what is owed from Czecho-Slovakia to this country, and. except in very general terms, I do not believe that it is possible for anybody to say at this moment how the accounts will work out; but knowing, as we did, that there was in this country a substantial amount on Czecho-Slovak account, and knowing that there were also securities and balances in the charge of these British institutions, it did appear to the Government and myself to be right at once to ask that an embargo should be put on their transfer, and then, at the earliest moment, to come to the House and ask Parliament to ratify and approve it. I am sure that I shall have the approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), who is always so watchful over points of constitutional procedure. I do not think the Bill can be a matter of controversy, and I hope very much that before the end of the week we shall have got this authority, and that things will be on a legal footing.

Mr. Logan: Suppose this Bill does go through, as I believe it will, will any refugee having any money invested or in a banking account have the power of drawing upon that account through the English banks?

Sir J. Simon: I am obliged to the hon. Member, who has mentioned an important matter. If he will just let me go on to say something more about the present position I think that will be the best way of dealing with his point. I was going to observe, by way of introduction to that part of the matter, that of course there has already been drawn from London out of that fund of £10,000,000 which the House will recall, a sum of something like £3,250,000. I am not sure that I have ever made it plain to the House that that £3,250,000 which passed from the Bank of England to Czecho-Slovakia before these recent events—the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia by Germany—was composed in part of drawings from what we may call the free gift, £4,000,000, which was directly to assist refugees, and in part from the other amount, which was in the nature of a loan and which the former Czecho-Slovakia Government had


undertaken to repay. That is the case. It appears to me that, so far as the amount is in the nature of part payment of loan, we should be entitled to regard it as an amount to be recovered. On the other hand, as far as this large sum of £4,000,000 to help refugees can be devoted to that purpose it ought to continue to be devoted to it. I think that is a principle on which we ought to try to act.
I would like to inform the House that there is one rather special reason which I wish to make clear now. Hon. Members will know that there is a most important body which is coordinating the various private societies and enterprises working in relation to the refugees and which has collected a very substantial sum of money, and that over this committee there presides a very distinguished figure, Lord Hailey. I have had a letter from Lord Hailey calling attention to the fact that that committee, which is helping refugees to come to this country, is in danger of exhausting its immediate resources and suggesting that it would be a very great help to the work which it is trying to do if it were possible to contemplate that this £4,000,000 would continue to be available in some way or other for the assistance of refugees. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, such a proposal might involve legislation, but I do not think it would be objected to by the House.
This free gift of £4,000,000 was to help refugees from Czecho-Slovakia who might need currency in sterling or in foreign exchange, to enable them to go. Already something like £750,000 of that sum has been actually used for that purpose. Mr. Stopford has been out in Prague and has been in close touch with the Treasury, and a very substantial amount of assistance has been given in the form of foreign exchange to a large number of refugees. So far, so good. His Majesty's Government think that this money should still, if possible, remain available for the general purpose for which it was intended, the provision of foreign exchange for refugees. But we must, of course, see that there are adequate safeguards that the money will be really used for the purpose for which it was dedicated. As I have said, I have had a letter from Lord Hailey, who is chairman of that co-

ordinating committee of voluntary societies, asking whether the voluntary societies can continue to arrange to help refugees who have already left Czecho-Slovakia or have got all their arrangements made to leave for this country, on the basis that the balance of this £4,000,000— £3,250,000—would not be regarded as withdrawn owing to the changes that have taken place in Europe, but would, by one means or another, continue to be available to provide for the needs of those refugees, in particular for the passage money to pay for their tickets if they are going by steamer, or for the landing money which they will require when they leave their temporary place of settlement in Europe.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does that mean that the funds of the Prague Institute will dry up?

Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman means the refugee institute?

Mr. Benn: Yes.

Sir J. Simon: That is a matter on which, no doubt, we shall get more information, but I think we ought to proceed in the spirit of that letter and enlarge our purposes, if necessary, as regards the £4,000,000. We shall not fail to assist every case that can be assisted, but it looks as though the need, which is certainly not less than it was before, would be better expressed if we regarded those efforts of the voluntary societies as included; and perhaps that is the best answer to Lord Hailey's question. A good deal of thought has been given to this matter and there is a good deal of real sentiment about it, and it will probably be along those lines that we shall be able most practically and effectively to give this help.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible now for a Czech to leave Czecho-Slovakia? We have been led to believe that no further passports are being given, and that they are bound to stop in their own country.

Sir J. Simon: That is a matter that can be looked into, but it does not invalidate what I was saying that this money can be used in many other cases in order to assist refugees who have already left and are still without the means to provide


themselves with transport or with the necessary landing money. If we are prepared to devote this £4,000,000 to such a purpose, limiting it strictly to the cases of refugees who are eligible, we shall be acting in accordance with the spirit and the intention of this House. This matter is one which has greatly exercised the mind of His Majesty's Government. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate my point that there will be plenty of cases in which assistance would be very valuable in the form of foreign exchange, and I hope that we shall be able to make arrangements to meet that sort of case, even although it may go beyond the particular class of case for which the money was provided.
That is all I can usefully say now. I have explained to the House that this is a very urgent matter for the purpose of protecting the banks. It is not right to ask the great institutions to abstain from acting in accordance with the demands made upon them by those who have deposited funds with them and then to leave those institutions to face the racket. If the Bill is passed, they will have a good answer, and the result will be that we shall have to answer for it. That is right, because this House is prepared to do it. I hope that we shall get the Bill through rapidly. I have no doubt that all sorts of difficulties will have to be got over before the matter is finally concluded, because this is a very complicated business. I hope that the principle of the Second Reading will be accepted by everybody. I am very much encouraged by indications I have already received that this request which I have urgently made is one which the House would like to see met.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In normal circumstances I am always very strongly opposed to hasty legislation. Unless there is a wide measure of agreement between all parties in the House it is never possible to carry a Bill with great speed, and that wide measure of agreement is in itself a sort of danger, because when there is no opposition any point that may have been overlooked is liable sometimes to go by default. My experience of Bills carried through the House with great expedition is that very often they are not wholly satisfactory. Sometimes they are found subsequently to include proposals

which the House had no intention of including, and sometimes they are found to be quite ineffective for carrying out the purpose which the House wanted fulfilled. Though that is my general view, I am not in the least dissenting from the view that there are occasions which are so abnormal and where celerity is so much of the essence of the matter that the usual procedure must be departed from and quick action must be taken. In such cases it is of supreme importance that the whole House should address itself to three questions: First of all, whether the Bill does in fact achieve the purpose for which it is designed; secondly, whether at the same time inadvertently it achieves other purposes which may be most undesirable; and, thirdly, whether it carries as a consequence developments for the future which may be entirely unforeseen.
I have applied my mind, as far as is possible for an outsider who has no inside information, to this very serious and grave Bill. It seems to me that in one respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not quite fair to the House. He did not give any description of the Bill. He said it was to implement a decision which he had asked the Bank to take. That was putting the cart before the horse. The real fact is that the Government, having come to the conclusion that it was-necessary to take an exceedingly important and grave step, and in order to see that their intention was not frustrated, gave on Monday last or during the week-end an instruction to the Bank, or made a request to the Bank in anticipation of subsequent action by this House, and today the House is called upon to pass this Bill, and if it passes the Bill it is not because of that instruction by the Government but because the House in its entirety approves of the principle of the action which the Government have taken. The Bill is incidentally also an indemnity to the Bank for what has already been done.
It is no good pretending that it is not a very grave and very stern Bill. As far as I know this is absolutely unprecedented action on the part of the Government. It is action taken in view of a very grave emergency but it is action which I do not think has ever been taken before in peace time. Therefore the House should devote its attention to the three points that I have mentioned. It is particularly


important that all Members of the House should bring their minds to bear on the question, because owing to the hasty character of the legislation Members are deprived of the assistance which is usually afforded to them by expert persons throughout the country who, knowing the facts better than any Member of Parliament can know them, are generally able to advise Members of this House. We have to act to-day without that advice.
As far as I can see the Bill does achieve the main purpose which the Government have in view. That main purpose, as I understand it, has nothing whatever to do with the Government loan or gift of £10,000,000 to Czecho-Slovakia. I am not taking the smallest exception to the very interesting and important remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House was only too anxious to hear what he had to tell us and what was the Government view with regard to the £10,000,000, but I think the Chancellor will agree that what the Bill is concerned with is not in any way that £10,000,000. It is concerned with entirely different sums of money, which for other reasons are at the present time either at the Bank of England or in other banks to the credit of the Government of Czecho-Slovakia or of certain firms, companies, and private individuals in Czecho-Slovakia. Looking at the Bill without possessing any inside knowledge and with only a limited experience, it does seem to me that the Bill covers the necessities of the case. If any Members of the House think otherwise I hope they will take this opportunity of expressing their views. I will not say that if they fail to do so they must "for ever after hold their peace," but, at any rate, now is the moment for them to speak, for the day after to-morrow it will be too late.
I come now to the second of my two questions: Does the Bill, in doing what it is obviously the intention of the Government and the House to do, at the same time do nothing undesirable? According to my information the instructions given to the Bank earlier in the week did produce certain consequences which were not intended. Persons who had come to this country from Czecho-Slovakia and who were residing here found themselves in a peculiar predicament. When they went to the Bank for small sums for ordinary expenses to carry them through the week,

they found that they could not withdraw the money. That was not the wish or the intention of the Government but that is what happened. Naturally the banks, having received this rather sudden request from the Government, were anxious not to break in any way the intention of the Government, and they put an embargo on the drawings. I am given to understand that now the text of this Bill is before us—presumably in the form in which the Bill will pass into law—these people will not be subject to such consequences. There will, however, be border-line cases, and no doubt the Government will do anything they can to prevent undue hardship arising by accident as a result of the passing of the Bill.
In my judgment most important of all is the question, what ulterior consequences may flow from this action? It is quite impossible to disguise from ourselves that the Bill will not be regarded with exceptional favour and approval by the Reich Government. It is designed obviously to prevent the Reich Government taking undue advantage, so far as this country is concerned, of the military occupation of Czecho-Slovakia. Therefore it is the duty of the Government and of this House to make sure that they are prepared to face such action as may be taken in retaliation. In the Debate a few days back I pointed out that foreign affairs to-day were like a game of chess. A player starts with a plan but it is necessary for him to alter that plan according to the moves of the player on the other side. It is necessary, before rigorous action is taken, to make sure that you are in a position to make a later move if an intermediate move by your opponent is intended to upset your plan. It would be most improper for the Government to explain to the House in detail what they will do on some subsequent" occasion if the Reich Government take a certain course, how they will meet this, that and the other, but I think it is up to the Government to tell us in broad general terms that they have given detailed and meticulous consideration to this point, and have come to the conclusion, in taking this very grave step, that if there is any attempt to meet it by retaliatory action they are in a position to act so that the retaliatory action will do no injury to this country. The House is entitled to that general assurance. I recognise that this moratorium, as it is


in effect, is desirable, and even necessary, but I consider that it is a very grave action, and I ask for an assurance from the Government that they have contemplated all the consequences that may flow from it.

4.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the promptitude which he has shown in introducing this legislation, and, as the case is one in which speed is the essence of the contract, on the still greater promptitude which he has shown in giving instructions to the banks to take the necessary executive action, which has been done. It is true that, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), this is an unprecedented case as far as this country is concerned, but it is not unprecedented in the world; it is not unprecedented in Europe. Most countries have already taken similar steps with regard to British balances lying there, and I think it is regrettable that action was not taken earlier by our Government to put those countries which had placed an embargo on British balances in a similar position. The Chancellor will no doubt say that the answer is simple—that there were no balances in this country to block. If that be so, he is even more to be congratulated on having taken time by the forelock—on having locked the stable door before the horse has escaped.
With regard to the balances and gold which are still lying at the Bank of England and in joint stock banks in this country, I think we can be perfectly easy in our minds as regards the balances in gold in the name of the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia, because the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia is every bit as much a Government institution as is the Post Office of Czecho-Slovakia. With regard, however, to private balances, private funds and private securities which are at the moment in this country, I do not feel quite so easy in my mind. Ever since the occupation of Sudetenland, a good many Czechs have been getting money out of the country. No one can blame them for that. They have seen what has happened to the Jews in Germany and Austria; they have seen those

unfortunate people turned out of the country penniless; and, as any provident-minded men or women would, they have been endeavouring to get a little money into the country to which they expected to have to fly in the course of a very few weeks or months. When the occupation of the Sudeten area took place, many people in Czecho-Slovakia realised that it was more than likely that similar action would be taken in regard to the rest of the country, and when they got a certain amount of money away into the country to which they would have to escape, they were only taking what might be regarded as a reasonable precaution.
The transfers of money from there to here have, as far as I have been able to find out, mostly taken one of three forms. Either an account was opened with a British bank, or lease of a strong box was taken at one of the numerous safe deposits in this country. That, however, in the majority of cases, meant paying a visit to this country, and a great many of these people have not been able to do that. The third method, which has been adopted by people in a small way who were fortunate enough to have a friend or relation in this country on whom they could rely, has been simply to put their securities into a registered envelope and address it to a friend over here, accompanying or preceding it by a letter asking their friend to be kind enough to look after their money for them. Such is the confidence which people abroad have in the honesty and integrity of people in this country that that sort of thing, I am told, has gone on to an amazing extent.
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is going to be the position of a refugee arriving in this country, who has money here, but who finds on arriving here that he cannot obtain it. In spite of the fact that no one is now allowed out of Czecho-Slovakia, refugees are undoubtedly slipping over the frontier in two or three directions. They have slipped over in considerable numbers into Poland, and have also been getting into Yugoslavia. In a short time, probably, some of these unfortunate people will be arriving here, and they will find that their balance, which has been placed in a bank in London or elsewhere in this country, has been blocked; or, if they have money at a safe deposit, they will not be allowed access to their strong box; or, if they


have sent securities to a friend, that friend, if he interprets this legislation as he should interpret it, will not be allowed to hand them over to the original owner. Nor will anyone be in a position to advance money on the security of that property, because at any moment the Treasury may insist that securities held privately which belong to Czecho-Slovak nationals must be declared, and, if necessary, handed over and placed in the general hotchpotch of Czecho-Slovak money.

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, because I do not want other Members of the House to dwell on this difficulty. I had that point most clearly in mind when I helped, as Chancellors of the Exchequer do, to draft this Bill, and partly for that reason there is introduced, and I think there must be introduced, a provision that this embargo, the prohibition to pay out, shall not operate without the consent in writing of the Treasury. It is essential that we should put some confidence in the administration of the Treasury, who are naturally in touch with the banks, and I have not the slightest doubt that if any such cases arise, they will be dealt with on their merits. They must be dealt with on their merits, and I think the House may trust us to deal with them properly and rapidly.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; he has met the case that I had in mind. What I particularly wanted was an assurance that refugees who arrive here owning money of their own will be placed in a position in which they can live in reasonable comfort, and not become a charge on their friends or on refugee funds which have been subscribed for that purpose.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We on these benches desire to give hearty support to this Bill, and congratulate the Government on the celerity with which they have acted. It shows that, if necessary, we can act in this country just as rapidly in the protection of our interests as can those in the Fascist States. I understand that the German Government have already been collecting gold and securities from the Prague National Bank in lorries, and taking them away, which shows that we

over here were right in acting at the earliest possible moment. It is a very different situation from what happened in the case of Austria. Then there was no question of taking any such action, and I understand that all the funds belonging to the Austrian State were taken over automatically by Germany. There is another matter, which I can only just mention in a word, but which I feel sure the Chancellor has in mind. I trust that, in the case of Memel, he will, if necessary, act in exactly the same way and with the same celerity as in this case.
In the case of Austria, of course, attempts were made by the German Government to put pressure upon Austrians who had money over here, by putting them in concentration camps and asking them to say where their money was banked in England and to sign cheques handing it over to the German Government; and no doubt a number of these poor people were obliged to accede to that pressure. The present proposals will make it impossible to exercise that pressure, because obviously the money is not going to be paid out, whatever the owner may do. A good many changes have already taken place in the control of Czech businesses in Germany, and instructions have already been sent to banks here notifying those changes. That is another reason for stopping the whole thing short.
When the whole question is balanced up, and the necessary compensations and adjustments are made on the two sides, I take it that there will be left over in this country a substantial sum in favour of what was the Czecho-Slovak Government. I hope that a considerable amount of that money will be used, as far as may be necessary, for the support of refugees, and I should also like to throw out a suggestion. I do not know whether it is practicable or not, but I think it may be worth considering. It is that, if there is left available a still further sum belonging to Czecho-Slovakia, with which it is not quite clear how to deal, the Government might at any rate consider placing it in trust for the provisional Czecho-Slovak Government which possibly will be formed, as in the old days, in America, pending the time when Czecho-Slovakia comes into her own. They will then have awaiting them a nest-egg in the form of their own funds, which they can take over when, as it


surely will, the free democratic State of Czecho-Slovakia arises once again.
I should like to put one or two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I think that in his intervention just now he made the position clear. I gather that in all reasonable cases refugees, both those in this country at the present time and those who may arrive later, if they can prove their case, will be permitted to draw out their resources here. There is also the case of persons in Czecho-Slovakia who own property in this country as shareholders in companies. Could it not be arranged for such persons, provided they can prove that prior to 14th March, let us say, they owned such property, and disregarding all changes since, that facilities should be given to them to draw out funds to which they may be entitled? Another question which has been raised is as to whether it will be possible for persons having money in the blocked account to move it from one bank to another, providing that it remains blocked. I cannot see any objection to that. We shall do everything possible to facilitate the passage of this Bill at the earliest possible moment, and I hope the Government, in all their dealings with this grave international crisis, will show the same spirit of action and resolution as they have in this case.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome this Bill. I share with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench some nervousness over the Bill being thrust through with such haste, but in this case I recognise that haste is absolutely essential. My first point is quite a small one; it may be a Committee point, but I should like the Chancellor to take note of it. Under Sub-section 1 of Clause 1, persons in this country who own securities are not allowed to part with them without the consent of the Treasury. At the end of that Sub-section, the words "securities or gold" are used, and further on, securities are defined as including
stocks, shares, annuities, bonds, debentures and debenture stock, and any certificate or other document of title relating thereto, and Treasury bills.
I wonder whether that covers the case of an ordinary commercial firm in this country which has money owing to

Czecho-Slovak banks or exporters of Czecho-Slovak goods. Could my right hon. Friend give some indication of the amount of Czech balances which it is envisaged that this Measure will cover? Could he subdivide it into two—how much is owing to the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia and how much to firms and private citizens in this country? I would like to reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the subject of Memel. It is a different case, but I think it is well worth examination. Although it may not be possible for the Government to give an answer during this Debate, I hope they will consider it. There was one point on which I did not agree with the hon. Member. He suggested that, after the allocation which my right hon. Friend has made, any balances which may be left should be, perhaps, held over in trust for a possible Czech refugee government. I do not think that is either advisable or possible. It would not be possible to tell whether that government in fact represented the Czech people, because no mandate would be given to them, and it would be very difficult for a government, or shall we say the trustees who might hold this surplus, to know anything about the personalities of the refugee government.

Mr. Mander: I really did not mean that a lump sum should be handed over to this Provisional Government. I meant that it should be held in trust for the day when there should arise once again a Czech government in Czecho-Slovakia.

Mr. Petherick: I understood the hon. Member, when he mentioned a refugee Czech government being in existence, to mean that the trust fund should devolve on that government, and not to be held for the eventual government which might be set up for the State of Czecho-Slovakia, or Bohemia. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that some £4,000,000 would be, in effect, allocated to the refugees, and he mentioned a coordinating committee of refugees. I hope he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will be represented on the board, because it would not be right for any body to have such an amount under its control without any Treasury representation whatever. I hope the Bill will pass through all stages, here and in another place, at the earliest possible moment.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I want to support the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) with regard to the effect of this Bill on private individuals. I think it is an almost unexampled thing in the history of our legislation to pass a Bill taking away the rights of private individuals, not through any fault of theirs but for the fault of another State, of which in some cases they are the victims. It surely is a most lamentable thing that we should do this, and I hope that, before the House parts with the Bill, the Chancellor will see his way so to amend it that we shall materially safeguard the rights of private individuals who will suffer—I am sure, against his wishes—under the Bill.

Sir J. Simon: What sort of individual has the hon. Member in mind?

Mr. Harvey: Clearly, both refugees in this country and in other countries, and members of private business firms who did not wish to have themselves incorporated in the Reich, and were in no way responsible, but who are compelled to go on living where they are in Czecho-Slovakia, and who may have accounts in this country. Why should they have to suffer for the misfortunes that have fallen on the country?

Sir J. Simon: They have not.

Mr. Harvey: But their accounts will be blocked.

Sir J. Simon: Special cases will be considered by the Treasury. I cannot define such cases except by saying that if there is such a case it will be dealt with on its merits.

Mr. Harvey: If you are doing injustice, it is not sufficient to say, "I will consider, in special cases, whether I will remove that injustice" I entirely agree with the intention of the Government, in seeing that money which was granted to the Czecho-Slovak State does not go to another State for which it was never intended, and that money meant for the Czecho-Slovak banks is not taken away by the banks of another country, but why should the honest individual, who is in no way concerned with the horrible events that have occurred, have to pay the penalty of coming as a suppliant for justice? The Treasury should see that small

sums can be drawn on an account without special application to the Treasury. If a poor doctor has come with a few hundred pounds to this country and he wants £5, has he first to make a special application to the Treasury? All of us who have to deal with refugees know that, with the greatest good will—and there is good will on the part of Government officials—it takes weeks or months to see that everything is all right before any grant is made. I am sure the Noble Lord opposite knows the immense difficulties that have to be faced. I do not doubt the good will of the Government in this matter, but I beg that, before the Bill takes its final form, the utmost will be done to see that it does not involve an injustice to individuals which I am sure no Member wishes to come to pass.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) was referring to Czechs in Czecho-Slovakia or in this country.

Mr. Harvey: Both.

Mr. Boothby: There is a great difference between the two. With regard to Czech nationals in Czecho-Slovakia, they might get a portion of any money the payment of which was sanctioned by the Treasury, but I doubt whether it would be very substantial. With regard to Czech nationals who have the good fortune to live in this country, I think they may congratulate themselves, even if they have, for a brief period to live, if I may put it vulgarly, "on tick," that they are out of Czecho-Slovakia and in this country.
I do not find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on every subject, but in this case I would most sincerely congratulate him on the speed with which he has acted, and the great courage he has shown. The annexation of Czecho-Slovakia has undoubtedly affected British interests. The Chancellor has dealt with the direct British Government interest in this matter, arising out of our payment of £3,250,000, and he has dealt with it in a manner highly satisfactory to hon. Members on both sides. Hon. Members would wish that, in so far as it is practicable and possible, the bulk of this money should be applied to the assistance of the refugees; and I am sure the Chancellor met the desire of the House in this


matter. But there are British banks and others doing business in this country who also have credit balances in Czecho-Slovakia, and they must not suffer either. It is clear that the realisation of these balances held by British firms, institutions, banks and individuals in Prague has been made quite impossible by what has taken place. Even if the debtor in Czecho-Slovakia wished to pay, he undoubtedly would not be allowed to do so.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but I would like to make one or two suggestions as to what should be, or might be, done with the very considerable sum of money of which my right hon. Friend is now possessed—which will prove in the end, I believe, to be much more substantial than was originally thought. Many people in the City originally thought that the sum involved, belonging to private concerns, would be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I think that ultimately it will be found to be considerably larger than that. I would suggest that, as this is a matter of the greatest urgency, a register should be made as speedily as possible of all Czech holdings in London and all British holdings in Prague. Then you will be able to ascertain the balance between the money owed and the money now held, or blocked, in this country.
I think it is important to set up as soon as possible some kind of clearing institution to deal with these important questions as quickly as possible, either in the form of a public trustee, or some other institution set up by the Government, empowered to decide what money should be distributed in the immediate future to those who have immediate claims. It is obvious that you cannot have a fluid situation continuing indefinitely, where such a large sum of money is involved, and where considerable hardship may be caused in the immediate future to comparatively small creditors. I suggest that nothing should be liberated from the fund until such a balance sheet has been established; and therefore the sooner that balance sheet is made up, the more satisfactory it will be from every point of view.
I would like to answer one statement of my hon. Friend sitting behind me with regard to the Czech National Bank holdings in London. It is very important that all the assets of private institutions in

Czecho-Slovakia should be treated as one unit together with the assets of the Czech National Bank. By Czech law, as it prevailed before the occupation, every resident, firm, or individual in Czecho-Slovakia was obliged to deliver all foreign devizen to the Czech National Bank, which in effect became the owner of all such devizen. Every holding had to be disclosed to, and registered at, the Czech National Bank; and no bank in Czecho-Slovakia and no individual citizen had the right to dispose of it without the permission of the Czech National Bank. Therefore, for all practical purposes, you can say that all foreign devizen was in fact owned by the Czech National Bank, which to-day has a complete check on all devizen held in London. Had it not been for the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this devizen would be finding its way back to Prague, and into the pockets of the Nazi party, at this very moment.
There should be a single fund established as quickly as possible of all the Czech assets in London, in order to pay off those British creditors who either left funds in Czecho-Slovakia or invested funds in Czecho-Slovakia, relying upon the assurances of the British Government and the other Governments signatory to the Munich Pact. This is a point well worth making. There are a number of British investors, and other investors, who, after the Munich Pact, regarded Czecho-Slovakia in some respects one of the safest places in which to put their money [Laughter.]—;Hon. Gentlemen may laugh. I know it may be said that the average investor is not a very intelligent person; but to the ordinary man, who is not a trained politician, it seemed that Czecho-Slovakia was going to become a sort of Switzerland, with a four-Power guarantee of its frontiers, and everything else. It was to be a veritable harbour of refuge for capital in Central Europe. I think His Majesty's Government at one time sincerely believed that this was going to be the case.

Mr. Ede: They believed it.

Mr. Boothby: I think they did. But it has not turned out to be the case; and it ought to be borne in mind that a lot of private investors, not actively engaged in politics, genuinely believed, when they read the terms of the Munich Pact, and


the declarations of the Governments concerned, that Cezcho-Slovakia was a reasonably safe place in which to invest money. These people ought now to be protected from the consequences of their action. Every person—and I would apply this to Czech residents in this country as well as to British subjects—who can prove assets held in Prague ought now to be paid out of the fund, at the last quoted rate of exchange prevailing prior to the seizure of Czecho-Slovakia. This applies particularly to Czech bonds.
Czech sterling bonds lying in London will, of course, be paid in full out of the fund. But there is one technical point I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The Czech Government repurchased about half of their outstanding bonds in the City of London, and these bonds are back in Prague. I do not want to see them realised now for devizen in the; London market by the German Government. I, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to consider whether it would not be advisable that while paying out of the fund which must be established those Czech bonds still held in London, dealings in Czech bonds on the Stock Exchange should be temporarily suspended. I certainly do not want to give any money arising out of the situation in Czecho-Slovakia to Germany at the present time.
I feel, and I am sure the House as a whole feels, that there is really great necessity for speed in this matter. We are rightly giving an indemnity to the Government and to the banks in respect of the wise, courageous and quick action they have taken. But it is very necessary, especially in view of what my hon. Friend above the Gangway said, that the position arising out of the credits held at present by British citizens in Prague, and by other citizens resident in this country, should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment, and that the minimum of hardship should be involved.
I beg of the right hon. Gentleman, if he contemplates, as I imagine he does, setting up a fund, that this should be done, and the fund distributed as quickly as possible. Even after all the creditors have been paid off, there will still be, according to my information, a substantial balance lying in London to the credit of His Majesty's Government, or rather to the credit of the fund. The question will

then arise, as the hon. Member who spoke for the Liberal party pointed out, as to what is to be done with the surplus, which I have no doubt at all will exist, even after all existing claims have been fully met out of the fund. I think we would all desire that these credits should be maintained in a suspense fund of some kind, either for the use or benefit of refugees, or for such other purposes as this House and His Majesty's Government may at a later date determine. One thing is perfectly certain, in view of what is happening in Europe now, and that is that the refugee problem is not going to diminish with the passage of time; and it may well be that the Government will be glad in a few months, or a few years time, to have this money at their disposal.

4.54 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Government on doing something highly unconstitutional, and doing it very speedily. I am glad that the Government have come to the House so swiftly with a Bill for the confirmation of their action. I should like to pay my tribute to the Treasury for its alertness and for the speed of its action in this matter, and for the courage it has displayed in acting without legislative sanction. There is one point which I confess occasions me a little anxiety with regard to this Bill, the whole purpose of which, naturally, I support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said, this is an important thing to do, and it is a very unusual method of procedure. The City of London depends for its financial reputation upon the fact that money deposited here can in normal circumstances be withdrawn at will. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider prefacing the Bill by a Preamble stating that the seizure of Czecho-Slovakia by Herr Hitler was a breach of a solemn undertaking, and that the British Government regard that seizure as unlawful and do not recognise it. That would give a basis for this Bill, which it is very desirable to have, so as to show, if nothing else, that this is a very exceptional occurrence taking place under most unusual conditions. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to give the matter some thought.
There are a number of small points in the Bill to which I wish to draw attention. The Bill, especially in view of the short


time available for drafting it, seems to be admirably adapted to its purpose. But there are one or two points in it which seem to provide some loopholes. For instance, in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a), the persons who are prohibited are persons carrying on the business of banking. Bankers are prohibited from making payment out of accounts to persons ordinarily resident in Czecho-Slovakia. I do not know whether a "person carrying on the business of banking" would include an acceptance house. If I am right, there would be nothing to prevent the meeting of an acceptance for the benefit of a person ordinarily resident in Czecho-Slovakia. Obviously, the draftsman has been alert on this point as he has proceeded with the Bill, because in the next paragraph he makes another restriction with reference to any person or persons ordinarily resident in Czecho-Slovakia: that paragraph refers not to ordinary accounts but to "any securities or gold." Even so he has not covered the whole of the ground. There are certain amounts of gold and securities held by Czechoslovak subjects here in the vaults of banks, in private safes in banks and minor banks, and also in private safe deposits.
As far as gold or securities deposited by a person in a safe in a bank or a safe deposit are concerned, the bank or owner of the safe deposit does not hold the securities or gold for the Czecho-Slovakia at all. He is merely in the position of the lessor of the safe, and under this Bill there will be nothing that I can see to prevent the Czecho-Slovak depositor from going to the bank or the safe deposit, opening his safe and removing his gold and securities, the reason being that the bank and the safe deposit are not persons who hold the gold or securities, but simply, in the circumstances I have indicated, the lessors of safes. They have no answer under this Bill to any action that may be brought against them by the depositor. That I conceive to be the position.
While it is true that there are relatively large balances in this country and deposits of gold, they are by no means the only sources of sterling which the German Government would like. It is within my experience that the German Government have, in the case of German subjects, called upon them, if they have

been insured with a British insurance company, to apply to the British insurance company to accept a surrender of the policy against the payment of a surrender value in sterling. The German subject has been very unwilling to do that. He has to act under the compulsion of the Government under whom he lives, and the same thing, I imagine, will apply to the Czecho-Slovak. Where the Czechoslovak subject has a life insurance in this country, the German Government will call upon him to surrender the policy and hand over the sterling proceeds to the German Government. Great pressure is brought to bear upon such persons to act in the way I have indicated, a pressure which they find it impossible to resist.
There are substantial book debts due from this country to Czecho-Slovakia and they are not covered by the Bill. I would suggest the desirability of covering them speedily, because the German Government have a pretty little habit of appointing commissars, or persons of some such kind, to control businesses within German territories—and Czecho-Slovakia is now within German territory for this purpose—and the commissar then comes to the English debtor and says, "I am the person who is authorised to collect the debt and I am the only person authorised. Pay it to me." Some rather misguided people sometimes do it, though if they sought the decision of the courts they would probably find that they were under no such compulsion. It may be desirable to cover, in addition to the matters mentioned in the Bill, the insurances and book debts which I have mentioned. Another hon. Member has referred to shares held in British companies. I wish that some restriction could be placed—I do not think it would be difficult to devise a formula—on dealings in shares in English companies by persons ordinarily resident in Czecho-Slovakia.
I have heard with a great deal of appreciation, as no doubt have others, what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to refugees and the application of funds for their assistance. As he said, that question does not, strictly speaking, arise under the Bill, and I will not mention it except to express my appreciation. But there does arise a question about refugees which has been touched upon more than


once and was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and that is the operation of their banking accounts. The Chancellor gave an explanation as to how the Bill would work, which may be satisfactory to a number of Members, especially those who raised the question, but the matter is not by any means so simple as all that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow a general rule to be made that Czechoslovak refugees in this country may at once draw out the whole of their banking accounts. Very often the German Government brings pressure to bear upon refugees in this country to draw out money and remit it to Czecho-Slovakia or to Germany, and it is only on condition of the refugee acting in that way that they will either allow some near relation to leave Germany or refrain from putting some relation into a concentration camp. In fact it is a method of blackmail, and I am sure notwithstanding what the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) has said, that the refugees will welcome the fact that they are prohibited from drawing their money out except with the consent of the Treasury, because it is a complete reply by them to the pressure brought to bear on them by the German Government. One could multiply instances in which the pressure is so great that the Czechs, although they have fled from Czecho-Slovakia, are only too glad to be prevented from drawing their own money.
The hon. Member also referred to the position of persons who have not left Czecho-Slovakia but are still there, and he commiserated with them as unhappy persons whose private rights were being interfered with. I do not hesitate to say that those private traders who are still in Czecho-Slovakia and who have bank deposits here are only too glad to have them blocked, because it is a complete answer when they are called upon to transfer their balances to Czecho-Slovakia, for when they do transfer them they do not get what they have drawn from the British bankers; they get Czech currency only. There will undoubtedly be a large sum available to be dealt with and I very much hope, though it is not contemplated by the terms of the Bill, which is merely of a negative character, that the Government will introduce legislation in the near

future under which a clearing arrangement will be established. What should be done with any ultimate balance is a. matter that can be considered when the balance has been ascertained, but I am sure it will be a matter of profound gratification to those in this country to whom money is owed from Czecho-Slovakia to know that there are resources to which under proper clearing arrangements they will be able to look for reimbursement. I hope we may be told that legislation directed to that end is contemplated in the not too distant future.

5.7 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: I also warmly welcome the Bill. Naturally it is bound to lead to certain complications, but I accept the fact that the Treasury must be given authority and power to deal with those complications that arise. I think the mere fact that balances cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the Treasury will be the greatest protection to many individuals in Czecho-Slovakia and elsewhere who have balances in this-country. I knew several cases in respect of Austria where individuals were forced to sign papers transferring their balances in this country to the German bank. There is only one point that I want to stress. If I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright, out of the original £10,000,000 loan and gift to Czecho-Slovakia so far only £3,250,000 has been expended. Some of it has-already been spent on refugee work. Am I to understand that the part which has been spent on refugees is going to be counted as part of the £4,000,000 gift which we have promised to make for refugee work. I was very glad to hear, in regard to the remaining part of the £4,000,000, that the Government will give a wider and more generous interpretation as to the way in which it is to be spent in assisting the refugees. I hope that the-coordinating committee and the Czech committee will be given the greatest possible latitude in dealing with this sum. It is impossible to exaggerate the work that the Committee have done and are doing for refugees and they alone can know what are the circumstances of the refugees. Some of them are not in Czecho-Slovakia. Some are in Hungary and Rumania. I know of some who are in Holland. These people, for whom we have direct responsibility—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a long way outside the scope of the Bill.

Captain Cazalet: I was only referring to a specific point which the Chancellor raised. I hope that the Czech refugees who are not in this country, and have no means whatever of getting to this country or to the Dominions, for whom we have a direct responsibility, will be allowed to be assisted out of this £4,000,000. I am grateful for what the Chancellor has said and I hope the Government will come to some decision quickly and generously on the point.

5.10 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I join with other speakers in congratulating the Government on the celerity with which they have acted. I share the fears of my colleague in the representation of the Combined Universities that it may work hard on some individuals who would not be able to draw their balances, but I recognise that it is a necessity. May I submit this small point? It would be a still further advantage if a balance which a refugee now in Czecho-Slovakia has in a London bank could be transferred to another bank. It may fall into the hands of the Gestapo, and then pressure may be brought to bear on him and, although it is true that the blocking of his balance in one bank may be one safeguard, it is really a greater safeguard if he can conceal from the German authorities as far as possible the amount of his potential resources. What would be the difficulty of permitting a transfer from one banking firm to another if the balance remained blocked?
I am glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to reserve the whole of this money, but I was rather astonished to hear several Members say they anticipated that at the end there would be a considerable credit, and various suggestions have been made as to how the amount left in the fund should be used. Why is it anticipated that there will be more than enough, or indeed enough, to deal with the problem of the refugees? What happened last week has enormously increased the number of potential refugees. Up to last week it was anticipated that there were something like 6,000 or 7,000 persons who might for their own safety leave Czecho-Sovakia. Of that number only about

2,000 have reached this country and only about 1,000 have reached other countries, thanks to interminable delays in the Foreign Office making up its mind as to its policy and conducting negotiations for the loan, and to delays in the Home Office. To many of us it is a bitter thought that thousands of those refugees are now probably in the hands of the Gestapo.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a Debate on refugees as a whole.

Miss Rathbone: I was only referring to that very briefly to make this point, that many have not got out for whom it is too late, and that there are about 350,000 Jewish refugees now in Czecho-Slovakia. All this money will be wanted and more than wanted. We have now to deal with a number of potential refugees infinitely larger than we expected to deal with only a brief 10 days ago. It may or may not be possible to extricate those people, but probably the whole of those 250,000 Czecho-Slovakian Jews are likely soon to be subjected to the Nuremburg laws. It is most essential that we should not only regard this £4,000,000 as a debt of honour to be kept for the use of refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. We have also to consider what is going to happen to the £4,000,000, or what has not been expended of it, which was not a gift but a loan. We do not want to make money out of this miserable affair. Out of the whole of the money originally intended for the assistance of refugees only £4,000,000 was for the emigration of refugees.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is really getting out of order now.

Miss Rathbone: I was just finishing. There was £8,000,000 allotted for the assistance of refugees in some shape or another, and all this money will be wanted.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. F. Anderson: I desire to raise a few points which have not so far been touched upon. I want to raise the question of industrialists who reached this country before 15th March with the object of establishing new industries in the Special Areas. These people have entered into certain commitments, and I want to ask whether they are entitled to have these commitments met without having to make application to the bank where


they have accounts in this country. The Bill refers to residence and qualifications —it says "ordinarily resident"

Sir J. Simon: Are the people to whom the hon. Member is referring in this country now?

Mr. Anderson: Yes, they arrived about the 12th March. I think the Treasury have already had some correspondence with regard to the points I am putting. These people are industrialists and have entered into certain commitments. What is their position? From my knowledge of what has been done it appears that nothing has been said for these people in regard to their application to the bank for the release of money from their accounts in order to meet these commitments. Two applications have been made, and the bank, a well known bank, is not in. a position to say what can be done. Is that position covered by the Bill? Is it one of the points which will have to be considered on its merits by the Treasury? If these people who are entering this country to establish new industries have on every occasion to go to the Treasury for the purpose of obtaining sanction to spend money in certain ways it will make it impossible for them to carry out their business ideas.
My second point is this. Some persons have arrived—I am not speaking of ordinary refugees but of people who desire to establish industries in this country— after 15th March. What is their position? I have had a case in the last day or two of a person who has many thousands of pounds in a bank in this country. He has had to go to the bank and say that he wants permission to pay his hotel bill. Surely it cannot be intended that such a person has on every occasion to make application to the Treasury in order to meet his hotel expenses? What is going to be the position of people who have arrived after 15th March? Is there going to be a general acknowledgment that they can establish their businesses, and that in the circumstances they will not be asked, every time they want £100 or £200 from the bank, to go to the Treasury for sanction? I would like these points cleared up, because there are a number of industrialists, from Czecho-Slovakia in particular, who are in this predicament to-day and unless the matter is cleared up serious injury might be caused to these people, who are anxious to establish in

this country industries which will find useful employment for many of our people.

5.22 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) began his remarks by saying that the Bill is a stern measure. I agree; it is, for we are living in stern times. That is the justification for the Bill. He asked whether there was any precedent for this form of legislation in peace time. The answer is that as far as this country is concerned there is, so far as I know, none; but it must be recognised that other countries have frequently done precisely what we are doing in this Bill by means of exchange restrictions. Therefore I do not think that our withers should be unduly wrung on that score. The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether the Bill was concerned with other accounts and other balances besides the £10,000,000 concerned in the Government free gift and loan, about which we have recently been legislating. It is, but the House must recognise that the effect of the Bill is also to block—and it does block—the accounts relating to the £10,000,000, both the £4,000,000 gift and the £6,000,000 loan. Hon. Members will also realise that this legislation, which is to deal with an urgent situation, must deal with it on broad lines, and I do not suppose that anyone will assume that the provisions of the Bill represent finality in dealing with this difficult problem.
A question which has agitated hon. Members in all parts of the House, and which has been raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson), is, to put it in a rather flippant way, the difficulty at the present time for the Czechs to cash cheques. It is an unfortunate situation, but it is only temporary. It is the direct result of an obligation to bring in legislation quickly and in general terms. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh approached me on the subject two nights ago, and I have made some general inquiries into the whole position. I understand that where individual applications have been made to get money out of the banks by people resident in this country, who obviously have every right to get money out, the applications have been dealt with expeditiously by the Treasury, generally within 24 hours. If any hon.


Member has any cases of this kind—they are probably bound to arise—and will communicate with the chief cashier of the Bank of England or the Treasury we will do everything we can to put the matter right and see that their cases are dealt with. As regards the particular point put by the hon. Member for White-haven, people who came from Czecho-Slovakia before the 15th March are not within the scope of the Bill at all, and they should have no difficulty whatever in dealing with any money or assets they have in this country.

Mr. Anderson: Only to-day a person who arrived on 12th March went to the bank and has only been granted a few pounds, whereas he required £200 or £300. The bank people say that they are not at liberty to do any more.

Captain Wallace: I, of course, accept what the hon. Member says, but I give this assurance to him in all good faith, that we will deal with these cases as expeditiously as we can. The House will recognise that in a Measure of this kind, introduced as a matter of urgency, difficulties are bound to crop up in the first few days. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh talked about the ultimate consequences of this legislation. My right hon. Friend appreciates the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman took on this matter and his unwillingness to press us for any detailed reply. When he asks whether we have contemplated the consequences of any retaliatory action, I would point out that foreign balances in Germany are at this moment subject to exchange restrictions, and retaliatory action is going on at the present moment.
A question which has been raised is the amount of the assets of the Czecho-Slovakian Government which are held in this country. We do not know what they are, and it will obviously take some time to find out, but I would like hon. Members not to get any exaggerated idea as to the amount these assets may be. We have had a number of speeches dealing with aspects of this question which, if I may say with all respect, deal with operations subsequent to this Bill, and therefore I hope hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for East Aber-

deen (Mr. Boothby), will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal in detail with a number of extremely interesting suggestions which have been made regarding our future action. As the hon. Member for East Aberdeen said, speed is the essence of the case, and we have been obliged to act in what perhaps might seem a rather rough and ready manner.
I have listened very carefully to the Debate this afternoon, and I "am glad to have failed to discover in any part of the House the view that there is any other method of dealing with the present situation save the method that we have adopted of putting an embargo on those assets which would be liable to be transferred out of this country. In these circumstances, I hope the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading, remembering that on this occasion my right hon. Friend and I have been obliged to cut into one of the days allotted to the Opposition, and that any time which we spend on this Bill is taken away from the time available for the discussion of another very interesting subject.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to deal with the question of moving a blocked account from one bank to another? Would it be permissible for that to be done?

Colonel Nathan: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also look into the question I raised as to safes in banks and safe deposits?

Captain Wallace: Certainly, I will look into that point and also the other interesting points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan). All I will say to him at the moment is that the most important thing, and the object of this Bill, is to stop the big loopholes, and that we are doing, although we may have to let some small ones remain. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that any suggestions that may have been made in this Debate, or that may be made outside, will not go un-considered. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), certainly we shall consider the question of the removal of blocked accounts from one bank to another, while keeping them blocked. If they are accounts belonging to people in Czecho-Slovakia, obviously it cannot be


done unless they give authority. If the people are in this country, we shall consider every case on its merits, as we are anxious to do, and as, in fact, we shall be obliged to do, because the whole effect of the Bill will be inevitably to give us a large number of individual cases to deal with as a result of the general measure for the protection of these assets in this country.

Miss Rathbone: I was sorry to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the question of allowing a blocked account to be transferred from one bank to another will be considered only if the refugee is already in this country. There may be cases where he is not in this country and yet may be able to make his wishes known, through relatives or organisations in this country, in a completely unmistakable manner. This is a matter on which some of those who have had practical experience with regard to this subject feel strongly that it would be a safeguard if the balances could be transferred from one bank to another.

Captain Wallace: If it is possible for somebody who is not here to give us his consent in an unmistakable manner, I am certain that the Treasury will consider that individual case on its merits.

Mr. E. Harvey: I should be obliged if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give some further information regarding the present restriction on banks paying out even small amounts to refugees. I am sure the Government do not wish to cause any hardship in those cases, and therefore, before the Treasury have decided on the question of the withdrawal of larger amounts, would it not be possible for general instructions to be given to the banks that they are not precluded from paying out small amounts that may be urgently required in order to provide maintenance?

Captain Wallace: I do not think I can say more than I have done on that matter. In reply to the hon. Member for White-haven, I sought to make it clear that we recognise these hardships and are anxious to deal with them as rapidly as we can. We think we are doing that. It would defeat the object of the Bill if we were to drive a coach and four through the general instructions that we have given to the banks regarding the blocking of accounts. Therefore, these

cases ex hypothesi must be dealt with as individual cases.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (RESTRICTIONS ON BANKING ACCOUNTS, ETC.) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

RESOLVED,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to postpone the making of payments out of certain banking accounts and certain transfers of securities and gold connected with the Czecho-Slovak Republic, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any money required by the Treasury for the purpose of any indemnity given under the said Act."— King's Recommendation signified.) —[Captain Wallace.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"

ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICE, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that all hon. Members, not only those who come from Wales, but hon. Members from every part of the Kingdom, would desire that my first words this afternoon, in opening the Debate on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Anti-Tuberculosis Service in Wales and Monmouthshire, should be to express our gratitude to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and his colleague, Dr. Courts, for the work they have done in hearing and collecting evidence, and in presenting an extremely valuable report. I wish, on behalf, I am sure, of all Members of this House and also on behalf of the people of Wales, to express our sincere gratitude to them for having raised this tremendous


issue and presented us with this very valuable report.
In the circumstances, I do not think 1 shall be using words that are too strong if I say that this report has shocked the nation. It reveals a truly terrible state of things. Speaking from what knowledge I have of Wales, I would say that the report has in some respects understated rather than overstated the situation, and it presents us with a terrible problem, a problem which we must seek in every possible way to solve, whatever may be the effort needed and whatever may be the expense. If I had to choose a title for this report, other than the cold official titles which Blue Books generally bear, it would be this: "The Price Wales Pays for Poverty" For that is the fundamental fact which this report reveals. It reveals Wales as an impoverished nation. There are revelations of malnutrition, bad housing, poor schools, inadequate social services—all these things being, I claim, by-products of poverty and of the ignorance, inertia and fatalism that poverty breeds, plus the subordination of the public welfare to the narrow, selfish interests, which is the final condemnation of the economic system under which we live. I think everybody who has read the report will agree that it presents us with a terrible picture of the position.
I want, first of all, to present the report in its proper setting. The task of the members of the Committee was to inquire into one aspect of the health of our nation, but we shall not be able to appreciate the full value of this report unless we read it in the setting of the Wales in which these things are happening. Therefore, before considering the report in greater detail, I want briefly to relate it to other reports and facts about the Principality. First, I want to refer to two reports that have been published within the last three years. In 1936, the Ministry of Health conducted, through their officers, an investigation into the grave problem of maternal mortality in Wales. What did that report reveal? It revealed that in the period 1924–33, the rate of maternal mortality in Wales exceeded the rate in England by 35 percent. Of the 10 counties in England and Wales having the worst maternal mortality rate, eight were Welsh counties. This indicates the price which the mothers of Wales are paying for

poverty. At about the same time, there was an investigation into another aspect of the problem of the health and conditions of the people of this country. The Ministry of Health conducted a survey of the problem of overcrowding and finally published their findings. They were based on the Ministry's own test of what is overcrowding, a test which hon. Members on this side would never accept as being a good test, if we are to judge what is a good house; but on that test, the overcrowding survey showed that of a list of 30 of the worst counties from the point of view of overcrowding, 11 were Welsh counties.
There is another thing which is essential as a background in reading and considering this report. For years past, the Ministry of Labour every month have published statistics of unemployment, and since 1928, they have published separate figures for Wales as a country. During the 11 years from 1938 to the end of 1938, the percentage of unemployment in Wales has never been below 20, and has risen to as high a figure as 38 per cent. Making a rough average, this means that for 11 years a quarter of the 'population of Wales has lived on the dole, and those who know what living on the dole means, will realise the full implication of that. If we relate the present report to that background—maternal mortality, overcrowding, unemployment, impoverishment of the people, a quarter of the nation on starvation level, for that is what it means to be on unemployment assistance and public assistance—we understand that the facts revealed in the report are the consequences of the facts which I have submitted to the House.
This report presents a terrible, an appalling picture of the toll which the white scourge is taking of our people in Wales. From the wealth of statistical evidence provided in the report I cite a few figures to give a general picture of the extent to which Wales is paying the penalty of its poverty in tuberculosis. First, I take the county boroughs. The report tells us that in the period from 1930 to 1936, the average mortality rate from tuberculosis in the 83 county boroughs in England and Wales was 986 per 1,000,000. Three out of the four county boroughs in Wales—Cardiff, Newport and Merthyr—exceeded that average. In the same period the average mortality rate from tuberculosis in the counties of


England and Wales was 724 per 1,000,000. Only one county out of the 13 in Wales namely, Flintshire, was below that average, and it was only just below the average. Twelve Welsh counties were above the average recorded for the whole country. In this black list of the mortality rate from tuberculosis seven Welsh counties occupy the seven highest places —Carnarvonshire, Merionethshire, Anglesey, Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire, Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire.
These seven Welsh counties represent 80 per cent. of the population of the Principality and each one of the seven is on the three black lists I have cited, namely, the black list for tuberculosis, the black list for maternal mortality, and the black list for overcrowding. Therefore, these lists provide us with an indication that 80 per cent. of the people of our country are living under conditions which ought to be a spur to this House to act as quickly as possible. That is the picture, that is the problem, that is the malady. What are the causes? This report quotes authentic medical opinion to the effect that 75 per cent. of the population of this county are infected with the tuberculosis germ before the age of 15 but only a comparatively small minority suffer from the ravages of the disease and fewer still die from the disease. It is only when resistance has broken down owing to some cause or other that its ravages are experienced. Where the conditions are such as to disable persons from offering physical resistance to the disease then its ravages are felt. The report points out that there are a number of elementary factors responsible for this disease and to these I propose to pay some attention.
I wish to face the fact that the first message of this report to the people of Wales is that this is a man-made disease and that what man makes, man can conquer. What we have to conquer is not a decreed fate but a social problem capable of solution. The people of Wales who have been stirred by this report are prepared to act, and they expect the Government to act with them. The first essential is for the people of Wales to rid themselves of the fatalism which has paralysed our will to act in this matter in the last few years. It is tragically true —and I want to face the facts and other hon. Members who come from Wales will bear me out in what I say—that when we are speaking in private conversation

about this disease, our people in Wales quote a colloquial Welsh phrase to the effect that it is y dicai—the "decline" or the "decay" —and they speak of it as if it were some terrible plague from which they could not escape by any action of their own.
I am afraid it is too true that as a people our Welsh folk are prone to fatalism. No one who knows me would charge me with not appreciating the tremendous contribution of our religious teaching to Welsh life and Welsh culture, but I am bound to admit that some of our religious teaching is responsible for this fatalism, for regarding this disease as some terrible plague which we cannot overcome. We are not facing a predestined fate, we are facing a social problem, and if my words can reach the people of Wales I would say to them in the language of religion which they know best, that we must work out our own salvation. If this report helps us to do that, then it will have contributed in no small measure to the creation of that healthier and better Wales which we all want to see. For generations we have argued in Wales—I have taken part myself in many such arguments in debating societies—on the interesting topic of whether man is made by the environment or the environment made by man. While we have been arguing, the appalling environment of Wales has been sapping the vitality of our people. Let us cease to argue and begin to act; let us make use of this report as the charter of a new and a healthier Wales.
What then are the environmental conditions which cause the disease and which we must sweep away if we are to solve the problem? First in importance is malnutrition or, as a prefer to call it, semi-starvation. Malnutrition is a meaningless term to the mass of the people, and as I want my words to reach the mass of the people I prefer the use of the word "semi-starvation" which will be understood. The first line of defence against tuberculosis is to build up the physical resistance of our people to the ravages of this disease. To do this, we must give our people good food and plenty of it. This report indicates the conditions which prevail in industrial Wales. Industrial Wales has at least had some attention paid to it, but the report reveals also an appalling state of poverty


in rural Wales. Talk about Special Areas—why the whole of Wales is a Special Area. If the facts are as stated in the report, and we know that they are, then the first problem which we have to face is that there is in Wales in the industrial areas depression, unemployment, low rates of unemployment benefit and assistance, and in the rural areas terrible poverty and a low standard of life.
Malnutrition or semi-starvation is shown to be due to two causes, first the fact that people are unable to buy the food which they want, and second that there is a large amount of ignorance of food values. My one criticism of the report is that I think the investigators have under-estimated the amount of malnutrition due to poverty and overestimated the amount due to ignorance. After all, poverty and ignorance are not unrelated. My view, speaking for Wales as I know it, is that if you give the mothers the money they will provide the food. I do not deny that there is a good deal of ignorance, but what is the use of giving the wife of an unemployed man or the wife of a farm labourer a cookery book and at the same time giving the unemployed man an allowance or the farm labourer a wage which makes that cookery book a mockery? Therefore I say the first approach of the problem of malnutrition is to give the people sufficient money.
I am sure that hon. Members who have read the report must have been struck by the account given of the diet of the people in Cardiganshire and also in Carmarthenshire—my own county. It is a diet devoid of all those foods which are known to be the real protective foods in relation to this disease. This diet prevails in a country which produces those very protective foods. In a land flowing with milk, children are denied a glass of milk a day. In Carmarthenshire I live near the main railway line and every day half-a-dozen special trains thunder past my house, conveying milk from Carmarthenshire to London, where a lot of it is wasted in hotels. That milk passes through all those counties where there are starving children who ought to have it. That is a scandal; there is no other word for it. In Carmarthen and Cardigan there are villages where it is impossible to purchase milk while we are sending

millions of gallons to London, Birmingham and other great cities. I make no apology for saying that I believe that ultimately this problem can be solved only on the lines of the policy in which my party believes. That applies equally to Wales as to every other part of the country. But in the meantime there is a responsibility upon all of us to see that what steps are possible within the limits of the existing regime are taken to remove this terrible semi-starvation from our people. The second line of defence against tuberculosis, the second Maginot Line, is good housing. Let me make one quotation from the report:
Disease flourishes where families are herded together in dark, damp and dingy houses, whether they be built singly or crowded in courts and narrow alleys, destitute of light and air, often ramshackle and rotting, with small windows which will not open and leaky and sagging roofs. These are the haunts o the germs which are a danger and a menace to man.
Those who have read the report know the appalling picture which it presents of housing conditions in Wales. They can be described in one word "disgusting." It is a strong word but I think I am justified in using it and the authors of the report are fully justified in using it. There is one point which I wish to press at this stage because it relates to the county which I know best and it supports what is said in this report. Two years ago I was privileged to take part in a Debate in this House in which I pressed upon the then Minister of Health, who is now the Secretary of State for Air, the fact that in Carmarthenshire there was special need for a close and careful investigation of the housing problem. He was good enough to say at the end of that Debate, publicly in the House and privately to me afterwards, that he had been impressed by what I had said, and that he would send his officers down to investigate the housing conditions in Carmarthenshire. They came, and they investigated those conditions. Will the Minister publish the report of his own officers? From what I know from the officers of the local authorities in Carmarthenshire, the conditions revealed in that investigation were terrible and were a complete justification of this report. That was two years ago.
The names have been given of some places in which the conditions are worse than in Shanghai—hell holes. I will not


cite individual cases, but I will cite one case, if I may, from my own county, in the division represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin)—Llandilo, seven miles from my native place, on the banks of the Towy, set on a hill, with the old castle on the hill symbolic of the old Wales, a beautiful place. The population is just under 2,000. I have not been able in the time at my disposal to get the figures, but I am assuming that there are round about 700 houses there, and the Minister's officers, two years ago, having examined all the houses in Llandilo, presented a report to the effect that 400 houses should be demolished at once, and, worse than that, that they should have been demolished years ago. I ask the Minister, What has been done? May I, in passing, say that Llandilo is the council which is referred to in the report as a "wire pulling" council. I would suggest that the Economic League, which is the Conservative party under another name, and the Minister, and others, instead of hunting Labour Members who charge 6d. too much in fares, should give Carmarthenshire and Monmouthshire a rest and go to Llandilo, where there are scarcely any Labour Members. That is a situation and a condition of things which ought to stir this nation.
Now let me refer to the part of the report which deals with schools, and I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is here. The picture portrayed in this report of the school life in rural Wales has left an indelible impression on my mind, of little children trudging miles through all kinds of weather to a school building that should have been pulled down 25 years ago, of children sitting on the cold, hard benches, with damp feet, and wet clothes, and shivering for hours, in the name of education, with no hot meals, with no milk— in rural Wales—with no fire, in a country where coal is running to waste and where colliers, too, are running to waste. It is a picture of which we ought to be ashamed, and I hope the Board of Education will do its duty, because it has a duty not merely to supervise what the local authorities do, but to spur them on if they are not doing their duty. That is the real function of the Board of Education, of the Ministry of Health, and of other boards, too.
I will now pass on to a subject to which I and other hon. Members have devoted some time and attention, namely, the question of occupation. Wales is paying a terrible price because its economic life has been built up on too narrow a basis. Our life has been built on coal, iron and steel, and the cultivation of the land. Can anyone think of any workers who work harder than those who work in the coal mines, or the steel workers, or the tinplate workers, or the agricultural workers, or the quarrymen? The figures of unemployment tell us how much we suffer for that narrow basis of our economic life in depression, and this book and other reports show how much we are paying in health also. Almost every boy and girl in Wales is pressed into these hard occupations, whether they are physically fitted for them or not, and we have literally killed hundreds of thousands of boys in these industries who should never have gone into them. But what else is there for them? One of the things for which this report calls out loudly is that we should broaden the base of the economic life of Wales and diversify the industries of the Principality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), in a comprehensive and valuable speech last night, referred to the problem of silicosis. Over 60 per cent. of all silicosis in the coalfields of this country is in South Wales, and, worse than that, the coalfield in which I was interested, the anthracite coalfield, which is only one-fortieth of the British coalfield, has more than half its silicosis. Then there are the quarrymen. We have here evidence that at Blaenau Ffestiniog 80 per cent. of the quarrymen over 40 years of age had silicosis, and Dr. Morris, who gave evidence, said that he was satisfied that most of them had tuberculosis as well. In this connection I want to read one comment given by Dr. Morris in his evidence to the Commission. He used these words:
I have been stating these facts in my reports year after year. Copies have been sent to the Ministry of Health, but nothing has been done yet. After my 1931 report the investigation department of the Canadian Government sent eight doctors.
Our Government sent nobody. What a commentary that is, that for years these facts have been included in this medical officer's reports, and our Government


have sent nobody, but the Canadian Government sent eight men over to investigate! The Ministry of Health does not come well out of that fact in this report. I do not propose to say more than a word or two about that part of the report dealing with treatment, because there are other hon. Members who know more than I do about the Welsh National Memorial Association and its work, but it occurs to me, in passing, that the one cheerful thing in this report is about the work being done by that association.
Let me say a word or two about local government and health services. This report reveals what virtually amounts to a breakdown of local government over wide areas in Wales. What are the reasons for that? They are to be found in this report. Listen to these figures. There are six county councils in Wales out of 13 where a penny rate produces less that £1,000, half of the 30 county boroughs where it produces less than £100, and 24 of the 59 rural district councils where it produces less than £100. It is utterly impossible for these authorities to provide adequate public services with such resources, and this report calls for a drastic reorganisation of local government over wide areas in Wales. The old boundaries, the tiny brooks, that divide local government areas, the old geographical areas do not fit in to the modern needs; and local government services ought not to be fitted into geographical areas, but ought to have regard to the great public services if they are to fulfil their tasks.
There is clear evidence in the report that there are many authorities in Wales which are managed by people who subordinate public welfare to narrow selfish interests. That is true. As a matter of fact, they are not Labour people, but the people who manage these authorities are people who regard high rates, high money rates, with horror, but high mortality rates with complacency. There is further evidence that there has been a neglect to perform their duties on the part of Government Departments, the Ministry of Health as well as the Board of Education and the Ministry of Mines. Here are the facts set out in this report and in other reports. Is this the first the Ministry of Health have heard of these facts? Did the Ministry know of

them before? If they did not, some people have been neglecting their duty; if they were known, and I believe they were known, why has not the Ministry of Health acted before now? If what I say is true, and if these facts are true, this report becomes as much a condemnation of the Government as of the local authorities in Wales. I hope that no hon. Member opposite will think that all these things are true because we are Welsh. Have an investigation in Scotland or in parts of England, and you will reveal conditions in many respects even worse than they are in Wales. These facts are true, not because we are Welsh, but because we are poor. They are the price of our poverty, not of our nationhood. I therefore say that this report is a call to action by the people of Wales.
We must bestir ourselves to solve this problem, even if it requires the drastic reorganisation of our local government. We must have adequate resources, and Wales has not the resources with which to do it. We are entitled to ask this nation, this great kingdom, not for charity, but for justice. For over a century we contributed more than our part in making this the great industrial nation what it is. We should not be able to help the Czechs or anybody else but for the fact that we have built up a mighty industrial nation. The valleys and counties of Wales have played a very big part in building up the resources of this nation, and we are now entitled to ask as a measure of justice that some of the wealth we have contributed shall be returned to rescue our people from their terrible condition. I thought when I read the report that if half the fortunes made in Wales and taken out of Wales by coalowners, royalty owners and landlords were available for us now, we would sweep our country of this disease in a few years. Money has been taken out of the country and poverty has been left—terrible, stark naked poverty and starvation, with all the consequences. Wales is paying the terrible price of poverty, and we are entitled to ask this nation to help us to rid the country of the poverty that saps the life of our people.

6.17 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: We have listened to a very eloquent address from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and I am sure that the sympathies of the House have


been with a good deal of what he has said. The report is certainly somewhat distressing reading. It may be in part a little melodramatic. I think that many people in Wales rather expected it to be, judging from the course which the inquiry took. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend gave any impression that he was going into anything like a secret hush-hush inquiry when he started it in Wales. We may say on balance that it is an exceedingly able report. It has been contradicted in parts. For instance, the medical officer of health of South Carnarvonshire contradicted it on questions of fact. He mentioned some particulars in regard to two houses, one in Criccieth and one in a village in the county, about which, in his view, the report does not give the correct facts of the case. Whatever contradictions there may be here and there, we are bound to admit that the report is founded on undeniable facts, and that in the main the Committee have established completely that the position is a serious one in the Principality in regard to this scourge of tuberculosis.
It may be true, as the hon. Member for Llanelly said, that an equally searching inquiry into some parts of England, in the counties of Northumberland and Durham and in some parts of Scotland, might reveal equally startling facts. If that be so, so much the worse for the whole of Great Britain, but we are not here dealing with parts of England. We are dealing with a report on Wales, and no one connected with Wales, whether the Government of the day, which is, of course, the Government of Wales, or members of local authorities in Wales, or members of Parliament representing Wales in every party, can escape their responsibility in regard to this report. I think that, on the whole, the condemnation by the hon. Member for Llanelly was of rather too sweeping a character in regard to the Government. I do not altogether blame the hon. Gentleman, as he is in Opposition, for he would naturally take the opportunity of such a report as this to make a condemnation in sweeping terms of the Government. If I were challenged on party considerations, however, I could show that in many of the areas mentioned in this report supporters of the National Government have not been in power. I do not wish to enter into that side of the discussion, but I should

have no difficulty in showing that if I were to start to analyse the report.
It has been emphasised in the report that tuberculosis is not a hereditary disease. Of course, we know it is not. It is an acquired disease and a preventable disease. There is no more preventible disease among the major categories of mortality than tuberculosis, and the fact that we in this country have made such progress in the reduction of mortality in recent years shows that it is an entirely preventible disease. There is nothing racial about it so far as Wales is concerned. I think we may say that the climate of Wales is a slightly predisposing factor, especially in regard to the South Western counties, which are very damp. Another, but not very important predisposing cause, especially in the rural areas, is the habit of rather too much intermarriage. That has not been mentioned in the report, but I feel that it is a slight predisposing cause of the disease. The main predisposing causes are those of occupation. The report mentions a serious fact in regard to seafaring men, and it is a matter affecting some of the Welsh ports. It is a striking thing that in an occupation in which the atmosphere is as pure and the ozone as good as it can be, that that fact is not a sufficient countervailing balance to the rather bad hygienic conditions on some of the ships.
The most serious factor in connection with the report, in my view, is the incidence of tuberculosis in rural areas. We must not use this report as a condemnation of Wales for some areas have come out of it very well. The industrial areas rather surprisingly have come out exceedingly well. I am glad to say that my own county, which I have the honour to represent, the county of Denbigh, comes out very well, too, largely because we have excellent local administration and probably one of the ablest clerks in the country, and also representatives of the ratepayers who have been clearly alive to their responsibilities. It is a satisfaction to me that the report states that, in spite of the great difficulties in regard to distances, this is one of the best administered counties in Wales. Naturally I cannot help but feel some satisfaction about that. The adjoining county of Flintshire also comes out in it in a very satisfactory manner. Another serious factor revealed by the report is that the


number of people who died from tuberculosis in institutions in Wales is much smaller than the number in England. The report states that out of the total number of deaths from tuberculosis in Wales 16 per cent. died in institutions or sanatoria or hospitals, whereas the figure in England was 37 per cent. That would lead to the conclusion that either there is insufficient accommodation, or an unwillingness of people to go to institutions, or a lack of encouragement among the authorities, both local and voluntary, to make use of institutions, or a lack of any compulsion to go to any institution.
I should like to mention the King Edward Memorial Association dealing with tuberculosis. That institution was founded by a distinguished Welshman, Lord Davies, a member of the other House, who, it is only right to say has, associated with his great wealth, a great deal of practical idealism, and has given signal services of a philanthropic character to the principality of Wales. His conception 30 years ago, when this institution was established, was a remarkable one. He had a great idea of abolishing tuberculosis from Wales altogether. It is no reflection on this Association that the results so far have been somewhat disappointing. The report does not give very great space to the King Edward Memorial Association. But on the whole it exonerates the association from any serious responsibility in regard to the difference in the mortality rates and the incidence of tuberculosis in Wales as compared with England. I think that on balance we may say that.
Though here I may be treading on rather delicate ground I think I ought to say that in my judgment this association has not developed its educational work among the masses of the people in Wales in the way we were led to expect when it was founded. We have not sufficient institutions for tuberculosis in Wales. We have large sanatoria in North and in South Wales, but very few small institutions of a nature that would encourage people to be segregated early, to avoid contacts and to get early treatment, in that way helping towards eradicating the disease. We ought, I feel, to show a sense of proportion in regard to things. I should be the very last Member to wish in any way to try to gloat over this report and say that all is well, but the

mortality from tuberculosis in Wales is, after all, less than that of cancer, for instance. I am very hopeful that the Cancer Bill, brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, will, in a very short time, reduce the mortality from that dread disease, but the mortality from cancer in Wales is higher than the mortality from tuberculosis, and as cancer is not entirely a disease due to poverty—

Mr. A. Jenkins: What can be the purpose of the hon. Member in bringing in cancer? We know everything there is to know about tuberculosis, but very little indeed about cancer. We know how to cure tuberculosis.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think the hon. Member ought to let me develop my argument a little further. His colleague made a sweeping condemnation of the whole of Wales in regard to poverty and said that was the cause to a great extent of tuberculosis. As the mortality from cancer in Wales is greater than the mortality from tuberculosis, and as poverty certainly is not the cause of cancer, I suggest that it proves, if it proves anything, that poverty is not actually the cause of tuberculosis either. As a matter of fact poverty is not the cause of tuberculosis.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: It is a predisposing cause. That is in every text-book.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Any hon. Member who says that poverty is the cause of tuberculosis is going against established facts, against scientific facts. It may, I agree, be a predisposing cause. This leads me to the two factors which are the two main causes in my opinion and are pointed to in the report. The first cause is found in the undoubtedly appalling housing conditions in some parts of Wales. I was very glad to see the report paid a tribute to the women of Wales as regards the cleanliness of their houses, despite the appalling housing conditions. I can corroborate that from a good deal of experience in my early days as a practitioner: in those little houses which are condemned by the report as hovels, as unfit for human habitation, as damp, leaky and tottery, I have seen as much cleanliness as I have seen in the houses of the very rich. It is a great tribute to the women of Wales that in those circumstances they are able to keep up the standard of cleanliness which the report mentions.
Besides housing there is the question of nutrition, and I am not sure that that is not an even more serious factor than housing; certainly it is quite as serious. The two together are, in my opinion, the main predisposing causes. No one can controvert the argument of the hon. Member that poverty is the cause of a good deal of malnutrition, and it is true that a large number of the population in Wales, as in England, have not the wherewithal to buy a completely satisfactory diet; but having said that we must face up to the fact, to which the report draws attention, that among people dealt with in the report are those who can afford an adequate amount per capita for diet but whose diet is wrong. The old custom of eating good food—home-cured hams and bacon, good vegetables from the garden, and milk—has gone in favour of foods of a deleterious character, some of it tinned food, part of it stimulant in the shape of tea., bread and butter, jam and various articles of diet of that sort. In many cases they are more costly than the diet which would be more satisfactory for the human system.
I certainly expect and hope that my hon. Friend who, with his Noble Friend in the House of Lords, is responsible for the education of this country, will take up the question of nutrition, because it is most important. As is pointed out in the report, and to my knowledge, there are children who go seven or eight miles to school in some of the rural districts. They get an early, and probably a hurried, breakfast, they wait for a bus, and they are all day in school, taking with them a mid-day meal which is unsatisfactory, insufficient and lacking in the vitamins necessary to maintain health. We ought to see that these children, especially in the rural areas, get an adequate mid-day meal every day of their school life. We ought to be assured on that point, because the report reveals that the mortality among young people, from 15 to 25, and in the ages from 25 to 45, is greater than at the other ages.
As has been already said, no one can be satisfied with the conditions disclosed in the report. The report reveals a state of affairs which is completely unsatisfactory. It reflects a great deal of discredit upon many of those who are responsible—we must not get away from that fact—very serious discredit. It re-

veals a condition of affairs which is preventible, reveals a condition of affairs which only a small sum of money, an infinitesimal proportion of what we spend in one day upon rearmament, would completely transform. I hope that my right hon. Friend will, as I know he will, send his inspectors down to these areas and get the local authorities really alert in the matter; and if we can get a grant from the Government, that will transform a situation which at the present time we all regret.

6.40 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I must confess that I find myself more in sympathy with the attitude of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr.J. Griffiths) towards this report than I did with the attitude of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). There is no doubt that the report reveals social conditions existing in Wales which ought not to be tolerated in any civilised community. The hon. Member for Denbigh has suggested that the report is melodramatic in certain respects. All I can say is that if official restraint has left things as they are to-day, then I am all for the melodramatic method. If this report has the effect, first of all, of rousing public opinion in Wales, and I hope in England as well; if it has the effect of galvanising local authorities into activity, and if it has the effect of also arousing the Government upon this matter, it will certainly have been justified. We should take a purely Jesuitical view of the report. There may be things in it with which we do not wholly agree, but we should judge it by its results, and the end should justify the means.
There are one or two criticisms which I would, nevertheless, like to make of the report. It is true, as has been stressed many times, that the incidence of tuberculosis in Wales is infinitely higher than in England, but it is largely confined to certain areas inside certain counties. The impression made, judging from some of the comments in the newspapers, has been that tuberculosis is ravaging the whole of Wales from end to end, whereas we must bear in mind that thousands of people go with their families to Wales every year to renew their physical strength and energy. That is a fact of which we must not lose sight. I should like to refer to Anglesey, to which great prominence has been given in this report. The incidence


of tuberculosis there is lamentable, but it is largely confined to two districts. Outside those two districts the mortality rates are really not very much higher than in the majority of English counties. The same observation applies to one or two districts in Carnarvonshire.
It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Denbigh that there is no single factor which can be held to be responsible for the incidence of this disease. There are very many factors to be taken into consideration—climate, occupation, race and, to a limited degree, geographical situation, but there are two main social factors to which I would refer. One, of course, is housing. How far does housing affect the incidence of tuberculosis? The medical officer of health of Anglesey points out that in one district in the island where tuberculosis is very high, 78 per cent. Of those suffering from the disease were living in houses classified as fit, and 20 per cent. in houses classified as unfit. In another district 80 per cent. were in houses classified as fit and 14 per cent. in houses that were unfit. That does not mean that housing is not a factor, but it means that it is a limited factor in the incidence of tuberculosis.
On the other hand, there is the equally striking factor that the mortality rate for females is in the main higher than for males throughout Wales. One of the main reasons must be that while the men spend most of their day in the fields or at their occupations in the villages or the towns, the women spend a great part of their lives indoors, breathing the fetid air of these damp and miserable hovels. Some criticism has been made that the commissioners have taken individual houses, in some instances a single house or a terrace. That is undoubtedly so. If you were to examine individual cases of that kind in villages in England or Scotland you would find conditions that were very much the same. I do not say that you would find they were worse, but they would certainly be very bad. The same thing applies to overcrowding.
The fact remains—and it seems to me a fact that has to be faced—that overcrowding, as disclosed in the overcrowding survey is higher in Wales than it is in England. Another fact is that less has been done in Wales than in England to

remedy bad housing conditions. Those two facts are incontrovertible. The conditions are appalling. I would like to cite one or two instances. According to the report of the sanitary inspector in Caernarvonshire, where the rate of tuberculosis is the highest, there are 1,500 houses in a state so dangerous and injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation, and 1,700 houses not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. I do not know what standard was applied, but I gather that it was not a very high one. The medical officer of health adds that, in his judgment, those were appalling figures, and he says:
I believe that the figures would be even larger if a reasonably high standard of ascertainment were adopted by every authority
I am convinced that adequate action is not being taken to deal with bad housing. Instances have been cited in the Debate, and I would like to give one specific instance among many that are included in the report. It comes from a town in Carmarthen where the medical officer of health condemned a number of houses as unfit. In 1937, a survey was made of that place, and 60 houses were condemned. Those houses are still standing and are still occupied. The case of one street in particular is mentioned where there is a row of houses which have all been condemned. As soon as one family goes out another family comes in, entirely contrary to the instructions of the medical officer of health.
There is some criticism of local authorities in this report. I do not believe in whitewashing this report, but I think that those criticisms are justified. I would like to quote from the report one criticism, which states:
Medical officers of health repeatedly told us that, from the date of their appointment, they had year after year reported upon the bad conditions of housing and sanitation, and warned the authorities as to the dangers attendant on those conditions, until, as one medical officer of health told us, they were tired of doing so. They told us that the usual fate of their reports was that someone on the council moved that the report be now considered, and then someone else moved that no action be taken—and the second motion was carried—often unanimously
The hon. Member who opened the Debate mentioned that there were 400 houses in Llandilo which were condemned two years ago and about which nothing has yet been done. I wish I could think that


was an isolated instance, but I am afraid it is occurring all over Wales.
I would now like to make one or two suggestions. Local authorities have powers to compel landlords to put their property into good repair. They have power also to require the demolition of insanitary houses. Those powers are not being used to anything like the degree that they should. I do not know what the reasons may be, but perhaps I could give one or two myself. There is a definite reluctance on the part of local authorities to use those compulsory powers upon landlords in rural areas. I would like to see those powers far more vigorously used. County councils also have power to take over the functions of a rural council which is not undertaking its duties properly. I should very much like to see county councils being made the housing authorities in the rural areas. I am sure that the Minister will point out to me that I was a member of the committee which drew up the report on rural housing andwhich—I am only saying this before the Minister gets an opportunity of saying it—came to the conclusion that the matter was best left as it now is; but I have since quite definitely come to the conclusion—I am as entitled as any other Member to change my mind—that the county councils are quite definitely the appropriate and proper people to undertake housing responsibilities. They have, at the moment, power to supersede the rural district councils.
There is yet another power, that of the Minister himself to override a local authority and compel it to undertake housing improvement in its area. Those two powers, although they have been in effect since 1930, have not been used on a single occasion. I cannot conceive why they were put into the Act unless they were meant to be used, and I cannot conceive of circumstances and conditions being more appalling than those which exist in many parts of rural Wales at the present time. There is no doubt that local authorities have been definitely neglecting their responsibilities and their business as guardians of the public health. I am sure that not even the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would deny that there are backward authorities who have not faced their responsibilities, but when we condemn them for their lack of initiative and drive, we must remember also the very slender means at their disposal and in-

creasingly heavy burdens that are being put upon them. The hon. Member for Llanelly said that there were places where the high rates of mortality were less repugnant than the high rents that were charged; I am afraid that is true, but, in the main, local authorities live up to their responsibilities although they have quite intolerable burdens to carry. The very interesting fact is revealed in the report that if you take the counties that have done least in the matter of housing you will find that they are the counties where resources are the least and where the product of a penny rate is low. In Merioneth the product of a 1d. rate is £642 and in the county of Anglesey it is £633. You can also judge the poverty of those counties by the rising cost of public assistance in them during recent years. It is very difficult to ask those authorities to undertake great housing schemes without further assistance from the Exchequer.
Another matter which has been raised this afternoon is that of water supply, which is a vital factor in public health. Local authorities are again criticised because of the lack of adequate water supply in their areas and the appalling sanitary conditions which obtain in some of the rural areas. The Government were so impressed some time ago with the need for improving the water supply of rural areas in this country that they provided £1,000,000 for that purpose. I am not sure whether the money was not for the whole of Great Britain, but, at any rate, it was for England and Wales. No doubt the Minister would inform us whether it was to cover Scotland as well. The Act did not specify how much might be allocated to any one scheme, but as there are 660 rural districts in this country, if you divide that £1,000,000 among those rural districts you have £1,500 for each of them.
Let me quote an extreme case from my own constituency of Anglesey where a water supply cannot be provided within the boundaries of the island. You have to bring it across from Carnarvonshire, from the mainland. The cost of doing so would be £500,000. Therefore, in order to provide a decent water supply for one area where the incidence of tuberculosis is high, you would have to take half the sum that has been allocated for Great Britain. That sum of £1,000,000 has already been allocated; it is finished, but I do not think that the water supply,


certainly not in Wales or in England, is adequate at this moment. No further provision has been made, and the problem remains substantially untouched. I believe that the time has really come when we should review the financial burdens which local authorities are expected to bear.
Schools were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. A great deal has been said about conditions in the schools in some areas. I hope that the next time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education comes to Wales—and I hope that he will come very soon—he will not confine his attention to the new and the reorganised schools, but will make a special visit to the schools which have been mentioned in this report I am sure that he has information about them at the Board of Education to show that they are ill-ventilated, that the sanitary arrangements are appalling and that they ought to have been closed down years ago. One must remember that parents are compelled to send their children to these schools. The Government should, therefore, have a very great sense of responsibility. The Board have been very proud of the great part which education plays in the life of Wales. We have sacrificed, and past generations have certainly sacrificed, a great deal for the sake of educating their sons and daughters. I hope that we shall not in this generation sacrifice the health of the children to education.
The only other thing I want to mention is the question of poverty and nutrition. Great stress has been laid upon poverty and under-nourishment as one of the factors in the incidence of tuberculosis. One of the most striking features of the report is, that whereas everyone has been conscious, unfortunately conscious, for years, of the conditions that existed in the industrial areas, we have not been conscious enough of the poverty in the rural areas. The report brings out that point more than anything else has done. The poverty of the rural areas is greater than in some of the industrial areas in South Wales. I was told of a survey made in one of the areas— I think it was in Monmouthshire—into the conditions of the urban and rural children. It was discovered that, on the whole, the rural child suffered more from under-nourishment than did the urban child. That might be to some extent

because they are not provided in the rural areas with a mid-day meal as children are in the urban areas, but, at any rate, we should be fully conscious of the poverty that exists, not only in rural Wales but in rural England as well.
There are farmers in the rural areas of Wales who have as little to live on as the unemployed man living on public assistance. There are certainly agricultural workers who live on a wage which makes it quite impossible for them to provide the barest necessities for their families. I heard of a case only this week in my constituency in which a child was examined for tuberculosis. The father, was a labourer with a wife and five children. The wage he received, including half board, was 23s. a week. He paid in rent 3s. a week, and the amount left to feed six and clothe seven people was £1 a week. An hon. Member spoke of building up the resistance of the population against tuberculosis. How in Heaven's name can you build up the resistance of a human being on £ 1 a week? It is very difficult to see how, with the miserable wages and the poverty that prevails in the rural districts, they can afford, not to provide vitamin-producing food but the barest necessities of life; certainly they cannot afford anything which would enable them to resist this dread disease or to overcome the debility which makes them a prey to that or any other disease.
It seems to me that this report has revealed the fact that there exist in Wales social conditions which are a reproach, not to our race particularly, but to the whole country. I think a grave responsibility rests on local authorities and on the Government, who must provide the initiative and the drive that are necessary, and who may have to provide the legislation—for I think that some legislation will be necessary; and I think a very great responsibility rests upon this House, and in particular on every Member who has the honour to represent a Welsh seat in the House, to see that this appalling state of affairs is remedied.

7.3 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I think it is desirable that, with a report on this matter before the House, I should say a few words upon it from this bench. In the first place, I ought to say that this


report is an occasion for debate upon conditions in Wales, and I think it has not been taken by the House merely as a report upon tuberculosis in Wales. It is a report upon which the important subject of the conditions of the Principality can be reviewed, and I think that in that respect we owe a great debt of gratitude, which has been mentioned before by other speakers and should certainly be mentioned from this Box, to the Members of the Committee which has produced the report and more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for his work as Chairman of the Committee. It is rather a surprise to me as a Scotsman that the Welsh Members so seldom take the opportunity of reviewing the conditions of their country.

Miss Lloyd George: They do not have the opportunity.

Mr. Elliot: The matter is undoubtedly in the hands of the Opposition. The Scottish Members have no more opportunity than the Welsh Members, but the Scottish Members use the great Parliamentary opportunity of the Estimates in the constitutional way by making every use of one or two days a year to raise questions of interest to them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman says we do not use our opportunities as the Scotch do. May I hope that in the future he will recommend his Government to appoint a Secretary for Wales? Then we shall have the Estimates for a Welsh Office and two days a year to discuss them.

Mr. Elliot: As the hon. Member knows, the Welsh Estimates are put down along with the English Estimates, and it is entirely in the hands of hon. Members of the Labour Opposition or the Liberal Opposition to choose one of the Supply days, which it is in their power to select, for a review of the position. They will not deny that, because they cannot deny it. Now that we have had that little matter cleared up—

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Before my right hon. Friend disposes of this matter might I intervene? I think he has given the impression that the Scottish Members use opportunities which are equally available to Welsh Members, but which Welsh Members do not take. I repudiate such a statement, because it is within the

knowledge of my right hon. Friend that over and over again in this House we have Debates on Scottish legislation in which practically nobody takes part except Scottish Members. We never have any Welsh legislation.

Mr. Elliot: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken, because although it is true that legislation arises which affects one particular part of the country, it is well understood that this House exists for the purpose of redressing grievances before voting Supply. That is its great function, and the Supply days are by constitutional procedure the days on which grievances can be discussed. Grievances exist in all parts of the country, and those who suffer from them use the Parliamentary opportunity of raising those grievances before they allow Supply to be voted. I will not deny that there are many occasions when legislation arises particularly referring to Scotland. I merely say with regard to Supply that Supply is voted for Wales as for other parts of the country, and on the Supply days the redress of grievances in Wales can be urged on this House, as it can be in the case of other parts of the United Kingdom. I would not go further than that, but the Supply days are allotted on the demand of the Opposition.
As I said, I think we may now consider that matter disposed of. The Welsh Members have very rightly taken advantage of this opportunity of debating conditions in Wales. This matter cannot, obviously, be raised as a party matter from one side or the other, because it affects the Principality as a whole. Undoubtedly there are challenges to the central Government, which the central Government will have to examine or meet, either in argument or in further measures. There is also a challenge to the local authorities, which the local authorities will have to examine and meet, either by legislation or by taking further measures to improve the steps which they are taking at present. And there is a challenge to the national spirit, which is accepted by all to-night. It was accepted in a most helpful speech by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in which he said that their teaching and their religion dispose the Welsh perhaps to a fatalistic acceptance of the condition of affairs. Who should know that better than one as closely akin to the people of the Principality, both in blood and in upbringing, in philosophy


and in religion, as a Member from Scotland?
I know well that we have these problems in our own country. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) did not go beyond the facts when she said that other parts of the United Kingdom show similar problems. The report on Rural Housing in Scotland certainly drew widespread attention, particularly among Scottish Members, to conditions there, and the hon. Lady herself, sitting as she does on my Housing Committee, knows that the housing conditions in rural England are in many ways highly unsatisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "More shame to them!"] Yes, more shame to them; more shame to all of us. But Parliament exists to remedy that state of affairs. This is the Legislature of a free people, and it exists in order that grievances should be brought out here and ventilated, and none of us should ride off by saying this is all the fault of the local authorities, or of the national spirit.
This is an occasion for an inquest on crying scandals, which we are all determined to put an end to, but they are not crying scandals for which any of us can evade the responsibility or attribute the fault to somebody else. The cases from Wales that have been mentioned can be paralleled from Scotland. The concentration of heavy industries, like coal, iron and steel, the difficulties of our rural and remote areas—all these exist in Scotland and in many parts of England. As the Minister responsible, I have from time to time to review the conditions in Durham, in Whitehaven, in West Cumberland, and in many other parts of the United Kingdom, where certainly I could make a report, not perhaps as bad as this report in some particulars but, it might well be, worse in some others.
What has particularly brought home the problem to the House and to the Welsh Members who have spoken is the fact of the poverty in the rural areas. The report itself brings out the poverty of the peasant, and that is a great problem which we cannot get away from by shutting our eyes. It was my problem for five years as Minister of Agriculture, and the poverty of the agricultural worker, the low rate of agricultural wages, and the low state of nutrition in the rural areas

are things which are not always recognised. You talk about people flocking from the countryside into the town, but they do not do that from original sin, but because they get more to eat there, because they get better houses and a more enjoyable kind of life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Better wages!"] They get better wages, yes. But all these things will make the House sympathise with the efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, who, time and again, has endeavoured to ensure that the great basic industry of agriculture shall be safeguarded and helped so that it can pay adequate wages, without which, as all will agree, these conditions cannot be fundamentally rectified.
This review, as I say, arose out of the Committee which was appointed in 1937 to go over more particularly the work of the King Edward VII Welsh National Memorial Association, and I am glad to see that the Committee was impressed with the general efficiency of the work of that Association, and that they found no evidence that this work has been or is being carried out on extravagant lines. I would like to pay a tribute to the action of Lord Davies in originating this idea, and the patient work which be has given to building up the Association and the organisation which controls it. One of the first things I did during my recent visit to Wales was, in company with Lord Davies, to visit the Association's offices and go round its recently built hospital at Sully, where I was very glad to see that further provision is being made for a specific attack upon this problem of tuberculosis in Wales. But the report drew attention to the fact, to which reference has been made this afternoon, that treatment is only one aspect of tuberculosis work. The Committee strongly emphasise that. They have given a full account of the steps which have been taken in connection with the treatment of tuberculosis, but they say that this is only one aspect of the problem, and they draw attention to the fact that, over large areas in Wales, preventive duties have been neglected or carried out imperfectly by some local authorities, who did not seem to the committee fully to realise their responsibilities.
The committee point out that more strenuous efforts are required to secure examination by tuberculosis officers of all


contacts, and particularly of young adults who have been in contact with infective cases of tuberculosis. I support very strongly their view that, if all young contacts could be persuaded to attend for examination immediately they become aware that they have been in contact with an infective case, the disease could be caught at an early stage and many lives could be saved. The hon. Member for Llanelly pointed out that there was a certain fatalism about the people of the Principality, that they rather tended to think of these things as inevitable, and that, in addition to the further steps which would need to be taken, an effort was required on the part of the people them selves. He said, "We must work out our own salvation," and I am sure that one of the ways in which they could do so is by seeing that tuberculosis officers and contacts get into relation with one another, and that the segregation which is one of the great factors in the checking of tuberculosis is thoroughly and efficiently carried out. That is a matter for those who, like the hon. Member, are the leaders of their people in their own areas; it certainly cannot be enjoined upon the people by legislation passed by this House. The report refers to the defensive attack—[Interruption]—I hope the hon. Lady opposite will not undertake a defensive attack against me while I am making my speech—

Dr. Summerskill: I said that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was taking the offensive, not the defensive.

Mr. Elliot: I am not taking either the offensive or the defensive against anybody in this matter. What I am trying to take is the offensive against tuberculosis, and that is what concerns us all. We are not taking the offensive against each other, but against disease. The Committee brought out most clearly the fact that the field of offensive against tuberculosis, and, indeed, against disease in general, covers very much wider ground than merely remedial or medical measures such as we talk about on purely health subjects. Naturally, the House will not expect me to deal with every aspect of the services to which the Committee have drawn attention. Unfortunately, as we know, in addition to the ordinary day-to-day work of my Department, further heavy duties have been placed upon it recently, in-

volving work which has nothing to do with disease or evils which may be brought on by germs, or even by fate, unless the folly of man is to be accounted among the fates.
My first preoccupation on entering my office was to look round rural England and Wales more particularly, because I knew, from my experience in Scotland, that it was very probable that a great deal of good could be done there simply by that personal contact of administrators which is one of the key methods for improving conditions which are found to be deficient. I undertook a tour of rural Wales of a week's duration. That visit had to be cancelled because of the crisis of last September. It may well be some time before I can get back to Wales again, but one of my objects during my tenure of office as Minister of Health is to go personally not only to industrial but to rural districts, because I feel that a great deal can be done by the mere contact of the Minister with the administrative machine, and it may well be that that contact will in itself do something to remedy some of the evils of which we have had to complain and to which this report draws attention. Naturally, I have asked for the observations of the Welsh Board of Health on the report, and I am also asking for the observations of local authorities. Criticisms have been made of their work, and it is necessary that they should have the opportunity of stating what their reply to those criticisms is. I know that there is a reply to some of the things that are stated in the report, and I think it is desirable that local authorities also should have the opportunity of making their observations known. It may be possible later, and I hope the idea will appeal to the House and to local authorities, to call a conference of the local authorities, possibly in Wales itself, which naturally I as Minister should attend, and where we could go over some of these problems and see whether first-hand conversation could not clear up more than a great deal of letter-writing or even committees' reports.
To come to the actual points raised during the Debate, the question of nutrition has been raised, and, of course, the question of housing, as well as the question of water and the question of high rates. These, perhaps, are the four main points that have been raised so far. The question of occupation also was raised,


but I think it was agreed that that is rather a Home Office question, more particularly as regards mines and as regards silicosis, which is an occupational disease coming within the purview of the Home Office and not of the Ministry of Health. As regards nutrition, attention has been drawn, perhaps more particularly in the report than in the speeches to-night, to the case of milk. The report repeats the opinion which has frequently been ex pressed by other competent authorities as to the value of milk as a food. They question whether this is sufficiently appreciated by the general public, and they recommend that the freer use of milk, especially in the diet of children, should be encouraged. I am very glad to notice that the Committee recognise the attention which the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture have given to keeping the supply of milk pure and free from infection, and they also draw attention, quite rightly, to the success of the milk-in-schools scheme, and to the fact that some 47½per cent. of the children in the elementary schools of Wales are in receipt of a daily ration of milk, although, of course, they point out that the percentage is lower than in the case of Eng land. As, however, schools are more particularly subject to the Board of Education, and as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board will be speaking later in the Debate, I will not go further into that matter now. I would, however, say a word on the question of the purity of the milk supply, because that is raised in the report, and it is a matter on which progress is not only being made, but is being made along the lines which have been advocated by some speakers this afternoon. The number of attested herds in Wales is steadily rising —

Mr. Hopkin: It is also the highest.

Mr. Elliot: The number has gone up from 454 herds, comprising 13,000 animals, on nth February, 1938, to 1,460 herds, comprising more than 38,000 animals, on 26th August, 1938. That is a very remarkable increase. Moreover, since the latter date a good deal of further progress has been made. Between August, 1938, and the end of February, 1939, the number of attested herds in Wales almost doubled, and well over 2,000 additional herds were being tested with a view to

qualifying in due course for a certificate of attestation. That shows that the big basic industry of agriculture is at any rate making progress in Wales, and I am sure we are all glad to see it, and that the supply of pure milk, which is very important, not merely from the point of view of the basic industry of agriculture, but from the point of view of another great industry of rural Wales, namely, the tourist industry, is being made more and more adequate for the visitors who go to that country.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does my right hon. Friend say that attested milk is really free from tubercle bacilli?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, certainly. The Attested Herds Scheme is intended to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, and the conditions of attestation include very stringent rules in order to maintain the herd in a state of freedom from bovine disease. I am not talking of accredited milk. That is a very remarkable achievement, especially considering the low economic level, to which the report also draws attention, of many farms. I do not wish to take up time unduly, because I know that in Scottish Debates we limit ourselves voluntarily to a ration of 15 minutes, and, although I believe that a Minister is allowed something like 25 minutes on such occasions, I am very anxious not to use up the time of the Welsh Members unduly. But there are one or two figures which I think the House will be interested to have.

Mr. Richards: Before the Minister leaves that subject, would he say something on the very serious question, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, of the scarcity of milk in rural Wales, and the difficulty of getting it? I quite recognise what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the improvement that has taken place, but the fact is that there is no milk, good, bad or indifferent, to be had in some parts of Wales.

Mr. Elliot: I have not nearly left that subject yet. Milk is a matter that is very dear to my own heart, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying something about it. Indeed, it is of great importance that the purity of the milk supply should be stressed, and that any impression that Wales is riddled in every direction with tuberculosis should be carefully avoided.
The report speaks of the routine inspection of cattle, and the necessity for the taking of more vigorous steps to eliminate infected cattle; and it draws attention to a letter by Professor Picken in which he points out that certain counties—Glamorgan, Flint, Denbigh and Monmouth—are at the head of the list for slaughtering cattle under the Tuberculosis Order, while certain other counties, namely, Pembroke, Carnarvon, Brecknock and Radnor, are at the bottom of the list, and rather draws the conclusion thta that seems to be due to laxity on the part of the authorities which are at the bottom of the list as against the greater keenness of those at the top. That, I think, is not exactly true, because, if one looks into the matter, one finds that the counties I have just mentioned, where the rate of slaughter is low, are just those counties where the largest numbers of self-contained herds are, and where enormous efforts have been made to clear the herds from tuberculous infection, whereas the counties where the rate of slaughter is high are counties in which the herds are largely maintained on a "flying" basis with outside stock. It is one of the figures that ought to be taken into account when we are trying to examine this very important and interesting report to see whether we can explain any of the figures. I think the counties which have done so much to clear up their herds should not be branded as inefficient because they have not so much tuberculosis as to necessitate immediate slaughter.
On the purity of milk supplies, the report also draws attention to the coming into force of legislation for a 'State veterinary service. That will be of interest because it deals with two points made to-night, namely, the lack of power for local authorities to carry out these works, because of the lowness of their resources, and the necessity of bringing in people from outside who should do this work. These things have been planned. The State veterinary service has, in fact, been brought into operation. It has saved Wales something like £11,000 a year, and is now providing a service of which the total cost is something like £31,000. That is a very great advance. Before the State veterinary service came into operation, on 1st April, 1938, there were only six full-time veterinary inspec-

tors in all Wales, and now we are able to say that the whole-time staff of veterinary inspectors in Wales and Monmouth consists of two superintendent inspectors, 13 divisional inspectors and 26 veterinary inspectors. Each county in Wales constitutes a division which is in charge of a veterinary inspector, and all are paid entirely by the State. The House will be glad to have those figures, and to learn of the setting up of this service, because it is so much in line with the recommendations made in some of the speeches this evening.
An hon. Member asked for information about the actual supplies of milk. It is true that there is a difficulty in obtaining supplies of milk in some schools in Wales, more particularly in the rural districts. That is probably because the distributive margin was fixed, quite rightly, as low as it could be, and it may have been fixed at a point which did not fully remunerate the distributor for the service of these small scattered units, where the overheads are higher than they are in larger units. An increase was recently granted to the distributors, and I hope that will go far to remedy the undoubted evil that the children whose fathers keep the cows are not getting the milk to drink. The report calls attention to that anomaly, and says that it believes that, with good will, these matters can be put right. It requires a good deal of trouble to get an adequate supply for all the schools, and especially in the rural areas, but it should be remembered that the law does not compel people to send their milk away. The Welsh should help the Welsh, just as the Scots should help the Scots and the English should help the English. It is all very well for people to say that the milk is streaming away from the areas where it is produced, but it is streaming away because it is being sent to other people in London. It is up to the producers to co-operate with those who desire to purchase the milk locally, and see that it is available for those who want it in the locality. They must not blame it all on economic forces or on the policy of the Government.

Mr. Jenkins: What quantity of tested milk is consumed by the children in the schools of Wales at present?

Mr. Elliot: I could not give that information without notice. The Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to get the information. If he cannot get it


before he speaks to-night, he will write to the hon. Member and let him know. The milk supplied to the schools has to be provided under the authority of the county medical officer. It has to be T.T. or the best milk available. I can say that every single herd from which milk is bought for the milk-in-schools scheme is inspected four times a year, and in addition a considerable proportion of this milk comes from T.T. herds.
I come to a point which was raised more particularly by the hon. Member for Llanelly concerning the figures of stamina: for instance, maternal and infantile mortality, which are of vital importance. It was pointed out that maternal mortality in Wales was higher than in England. That is true, but it has always been true. It is, however, true to say that in Wales, as in England, maternal mortality is coming down. And when one considers this tremendous and graphic phrase used by the hon. Member, that "one quarter of Wales is on the dole," it is important to remember that in one area where unemployment has been very persistent—Merthyr�žmaternal mortality is below, not merely the average of Wales but the average for England.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It has a Labour council, and the social services are good.

Mr. Elliot: That may well be, but it shows that the block grant from the central Government is sufficiently high to enable that Labour council to carry out good social service schemes, although its resources are very low.

Dr. Summerskill: l: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, throughout England, where there is a good maternity service, however much poverty exists the maternal mortality is low?

Mr. Elliot: Undoubtedly, good maternity services are an effective factor in reducing maternal mortality, although there are cases where environment goes far to counteract their effect. If an efficient service were organised throughout England and Wales, it should go further to reduce the figures which have been given. As it is, the Welsh figure has fallen steadily since 1934. In that year it was 6.61, in 1935 it was 5.89, in 1936 it was 5.17, in 1937 it was 4.54. The fall in the rate is particularly noticeable in Merthyr, where it was 5.01 m the period

1929–33 and 3.41 in the period 1934–37. The infantile mortality rate has also come down. It was 81 in the period 1921–25, 74 in the period 1926–30, 73 in the period 1931–33, and 63 in the years 1934–37. We are not standing still, because, under the Midwives Act, we have a service of salaried domiciliary midwives. At the end of 1937, there were 702 midwives employed in this new service in Wales. It is too soon to say what the results will be, but the arrangements are working smoothly and there is a better standard of midwifery in Wales now than ever before. There has also been much improvement in the provision of infant welfare centres in Wales. Between 1931 and 1937 the number increased from 278 to 312. In 1931 there were 60 ante-natal centres and 7,203 women attended, while in 1937 there were 109 centres and 17,353 women attended. Against the black background, we must always bear in mind that, at any rate, progress has been made in Wales. It is possible for us to do more, but we should not feel that our efforts have been in vain.
In regard to water supply also, there has been progress in recent years. There are 895 parishes in Wales and Monmouthshire and 547 already have piped supplies. Another 25 have good public wells. Schemes are being carried out in another 42 parishes with the aid of the rural water grant. When these are completed, 614 out of 895 parishes will have a proper water supply. As for Anglesey. 33 out of 55 parishes have been assisted by grants, and a total grant of £7,300 has been made to the county. The total capital cost of the works is some £32,000. It may be true that for a completely satisfactory water supply in Anglesey a sum of 500,000 would be necessary, but I am sure that neither the hon. Member for Anglesey nor I would wish, if we had that sum for Anglesey, to spend the whole of it in bringing a water supply there. There might be other things we have in mind, particularly housing, which would have preference even over a main water supply being brought from the mainland. It is estimated that, out of the £1,000,000 rural water grant the amount allocated to Wales and Monmouth has been over £134,000, so that a fair proportion has gone to Wales.
I should like to say a word with regard to housing. It is true that a great deal


of the report concentrates on this question. The hon. Member for Llanelly, my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and others specially stressed this point, and mentioned that finance is a very great difficulty with rural counties and that assistance would be needed from the Exchequer. I want to draw the attention of the House to the terms under which housing schemes can now be carried out in Wales, and to the necessity for taking advantage of the legislation and finance which the Government have made available. A grant quite out of proportion to any grant ever made before for rural housing is now available. It is not now a matter of asking for finance. The difficulty is to take advantage of the finance provided, to build the houses and use the grant. It is a very generous grant as far as the rural districts arc concerned, and, if one takes in the county contribution, an 80 per cent. grant, £4 out of every £5 being provided by the central Government. Now is the time to go ahead and remedy these conditions, of which complaint has rightly been made in this report. I do not think that anybody will complain that the grant of 80 per cent. is insufficient or inadequate to enable the local authority to go ahead and to tackle this problem, which is certainly very necessary.

Major Owen: Do the Government really expect these small local authorities, which are the housing authorities, with only an income from a 1d. rate of a few pounds—£12, £25 or £40—to go on with any housing scheme even if the grant is 80 per cent.?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, undoubtedly I do. I do it all the more because, with the recent revision of the block grant formula, many of these local authorities with money in their pockets do not use it for that purpose, which the report recommends and which we all recommend so strongly. If you give a grant and find that it is not used for some of the main purposes suggested, I do not think that you can reasonably say that the central government are to blame in the matter. The report draws attention to that fact and in paragraph 411, on page 242, it says:
Finally, we would direct your attention to the fact that, in a few areas, the Block Grant is more than sufficient to meet the local expenditure, and some part of it is

therefore used towards meeting the county precept
I do not wish to blame any local authority or any central authority for allowing money, as Gladstone said in a famous epigram, to "fructify in the pockets of the taxpayer" But in view of the conditions such as are described in this report, some of that money granted to the local authority might be used to alleviate conditions which are a scandal not merely to Wales, but to the country as a whole.

Miss Lloyd George: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any schemes have been submitted from rural areas in Wales?

Mr. Elliot: I am coming to that. The programmes adopted by local authorities in the nine rural counties cover 5,700 houses, and towards the solution of this problem about 3,000 new houses had been built at the end of last year, and another 750 were under construction, and there is no reason why they should not carry through that programme. Overcrowding is a very serious matter to some of the counties. In the nine counties, the number of houses found to be overcrowded at the time of the 1935 survey was 5,700, and the reports of the medical officers of health showed that at the end of 1937—which is the last date upon which we have this source of information —the number of overcrowded houses had been reduced to 4,400, with obviously a large programme to be got on with. I think that the figures show that the works in front of the local authorities are not impossible, nor are they unlikely to be achieved.
The hon. Member opposite asked me about Carmarthen particularly. I sent down inspectors to the county of Carmarthen to make an inspection of housing conditions in that county. We found, as the hon. Member truly said, that the programmes adopted by local authorities were inadequate for the real needs of the population, so we applied pressure to the authorities to extend their programmes and to expedite their execution. While in the last four years the number of houses built by the local authorities in that county was, in the first year, 48, in the second year, 71, in the next year 260, and in the next year 204, the number of houses approved during 1938 was 432.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is that for the whole county? The county is divided into two areas—wide industrial areas and rural areas—and can the right hon. Gentleman analyse these figures and say how many of the houses are in industrial and how many in rural areas?

Mr. Elliot: I have not the figures analysed here, but I will certainly have them analysed and send the hon. Member particulars of the analysis. All these figures show that the programmes of the authorities did not represent a complete picture of the housing needs. On the contrary, I am often told that we send down from the Department inspectors from the towns who are totally unacquainted with conditions in the countryside and that they insist on a standard of housing far higher than is needed by the people of the countryside. I am sure that the figures of mortality and the results brought out by these reports are very serious as far as rural Wales is concerned. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey will not deny that the housing inspector is not always welcomed in the rural areas.
Let me take another county—Montgomery. Before 1938 progress had been very small. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery has always been seriously concerned about the housing deficiencies of his county and has given valuable assistance in stimulating effort there. We have had conferences with the local authorities, and two of my inspectors have visited it, one of whom made a detailed investigation. One hundred and forty-two houses were built in 1938 in that county, and in the borough of Welshpool orders were confirmed for the demolition of 131 houses, and 100 new houses were erected. In the borough of Llanidloes orders were confirmed for the demolition of 53 houses, and 30 new houses were erected. In Llanfyllin, 16 new houses were erected, and in Machynlleth. [Interruption.] I have always found that one of the ways of ingratiating oneself with the population is for the foreigner slightly to mispronounce the names. Anyhow, in that urban district orders were confirmed for the demolition of 14 houses, and approval to the erection of 29 new houses has been given. To hon. Members for industrial constituencies these figures may seem very small but we are dealing here with rural counties where the population and the number of

houses are small, and where each of these things represents almost a personal struggle. Before you can get a house demolished in a rural area, it requires a very great expenditure of administrative thought and action, far more than is required for the demolition of streets of houses in the great towns.

Mr. Jenkins: I understand the right hon. Gentleman is now referring to Machynlleth. That happens to be a borough and not a rural district.

Mr. Elliot: Nobody can say that it is a great industrial centre anyhow. I have done my best to bring these facts to the attention of local authorities. Last summer I held conferences in all the rural areas, one of which was attended by nearly all the Welsh local authorities, and I tried to draw attention to the necessity of making use of this Act and also of the reconditioning Acts. I think that a great deal more could be done by using the facilities which Parliament has put at the disposal of local authorities to deal with these questions. I cannot now spend any time in going over either the financial problems of the local authorities at length or the possibility or the necessity of using greater areas by means of a combination of local authorities, which is a very interesting point that has been raised by certain hon. Members. Naturally, I have not come to any final conclusion on these points because the abolition of a local authority or the joining of one local authority with another is a matter upon which one must be guided by local opinion expressed in the local authorities and in Parliament. It is true that these counties represent a small rateable value, but they also represent long traditions, and hon. Members know that when there is a suggestion of entrenching upon the local government of any of the industrial areas, they resent it.
As to the necessity or otherwise of combining the counties, it may well be that these counties are too small fully to carry out the duties which fall upon them under modern conditions. I should like to hear the House on that matter, and to be guided by the House and the local authorities before coming to any final decision. We have often discussed the advantages of the formula and a revision of the block grant and of extra sums being granted to


the poorer local authorities. On the last occasion every local authority in Wales gained under the revision of the block grant.

Mr. Jenkins: It has nearly all gone now.

Mr. Elliot: It may nearly all be gone, but at any rate it shows that all benefited by it to a considerable extent. It may well be that we shall have to do more, as in the case of veterinary services, by taking over services altogether, but I am anxious that the structure of the local authority should be preserved. It represents more than efficiency. It represents an education in civic work and duty and in the spirit of democracy, which would not be fully made up merely by a very efficient service run by inspectors from Whitehall. We tried to review the county districts under the last review under the Local Government Act, but in Wales the suggestions made for alterations of boundaries were really very few and far between. My duties as Minister are strictly limited in that respect.
Before giving any further consideration to this problem, I should like very much to have the views of the local authorities and Members of Parliament. I think I have touched, after having been led away by certain questions asked by hon. Members opposite and indeed by hon Members on all sides of the House, upon the four main points raised in the report, and with which I said I would try to deal in my review of the problem this evening. I fully appreciate the fact that nobody would wish, as the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey said, to whitewash the conditions which are revealed in this report. They are profoundly unsatisfactory in the rural areas, and we have all heard time and again of the unsatisfactory nature of the industrial areas in Wales. We are all agreed. They depict people living under haphazard and distorted development, which is perhaps the most serious of all the things brought out in the report.
It is vitally necessary that we should do our best in Wales, as indeed in my own country, to try and get a better balance of the national life, so that the whole does not depend upon one, two or three great industries, which by the turn of a tariff in some foreign country, can be smashed out of existence. The idle streets and valleys of Wales are a con-

demnation of some of the industrial methods of the nineteenth century. Labour was pushed to most fantastic extremes, the most fantastic of all of which was not seen here or in Wales, but in some of the textile counties of my own country. I do not deny that these things are unsatisfactory, but I do not agree with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Llanelly, that these things will never be remedied until a completely new social system has been constructed. But we all agree that we have to live with the social structure as it is and we have to do our best to improve it.
I have tried to show that great improvement has been secured by working this social system in recent years, and possibly very much greater advantage can still be secured. Let us try not to pass our responsibility on to someone else, but regard it as a reproach, primarily to Wales and the people of Wales, and, secondly, to Britain and the people of Britain, who have allowed this to exist, just as I accept responsibility for reports on rural and industrial Scotland first as a reproach to Scotland and the people of Scotland and, after that, to Britain and the people of Britain. The best thing that the Welsh people can do is to try to revivify their own country. Argument here is good but argument in Wales is better. Agitation here is good but agitation in Wales is better. If there is one thing from which my country has suffered it is debates going on for a whole generation as to whether man makes his environment or environment makes the man. Let us take things as they are, things which we cannot completely alter in an afternoon but which we certainly can improve, as we have improved them in the past, and let us use this report as a challenge both to Wales and to Great Britain, and see whether we cannot, if not shatter things to bits, at least remould them nearer to our heart's desire.

8.2 p.m.

Sir William Jenkins: I am very disappointed at the Minister's speech. I expected an answer to the case put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and that he would make some statement in connection with the report. The only suggestion that I have heard is that he is going to call a conference. He has dealt with figures and shown us what has been done,


and what is likely to be done, but he has not given a single instance of what he is going to do with this report except that he is going to call a conference. I have spent nearly 40 years in local government and I know something about it, and I know something about the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and I know something about meeting the Minister of Health from time to time, and conferences have provided no remedies. Here is an opportunity for a remedy. I consider that this report is an indictment of the Ministry of Health. I hope that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be attended to, and that the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health will take some steps.
I join in everything that has been said in connection with the Welsh National Memorial. It has done an immense amount of work. Lord Davies in the initial stages did very excellent work for Wales, but the social service and the voluntary work that was then taken up was not supported as it should have been because for very many years we failed to get the Government to take any active interest in it. They were not given any financial aid when they started this campaign, and it was only when the local authorities came in that we were successful in getting the Treasury to give some assistance. I also welcome this, the first opportunity since I have been in the House of having a Welsh discussion and talking about nothing else except Wales, and I hope we shall confine ourselves to it. The Minister naturally has told us a good deal about Scotland, and has said that we have the same opportunity as, Scotland has. That is not the actual fact because you can have a day for Scotland, and there is something down on the Paper for Scotland, but for us there is nothing down except for England and Wales.
When a charge is made against a public body it gets wide circulation. We heard last night about the housing conditions in other parts of the country, particularly in the mining areas, where they have absolute hovels, as we do not deny we have in Wales. Whatever the shortcomings of the county councils, where there is an active county council there has been increased efficiency which has resulted from the centralisation of public work in their hands. The added responsibility has been accepted by the county councils with

courage and determination, but we are confronted with difficulties and we are not able to provide the needs of the people. We have had to break through old traditions, which has not been an easy task. Some authorities have met their obligations as well as they have been met in any other part of the country, but that is no excuse for Welsh authorities which have neglected their obligations to the people whom they represent. This report calls upon us for action. We have no suggestion from the Minister about action except, "You can take action in Wales. We can discuss it in the House, but do something in Wales."

Mr. Elliot: I cannot have made myself clear. I said clearly that finance has been provided.

Sir W. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman did say that we must do something ourselves. We cannot do anything in Wales without coming to him. We cannot do what we like in the local authorities. We can put forward schemes but the schemes have to be accepted by the Ministry.

Mr. Elliot: I have provided an 80 per cent. grant based on local authority schemes and agreed to put up £4 out of every £5 to carry the houses through.

Sir W. Jenkins: That is for the rural areas. I know something about the difficulties and the amount that they are able to provide out of a penny rate. What is the rateable value of a rural area? That is the difficulty with which we have to contend. There is nothing new in the action that has been taken by local authorities, but this publicity will give a new impetus to the laggard authorities who will not move to assist the people. I had experience of these local authorities in my younger days. We could not move them. But of recent years, when we have a live local administrative body anxious to do something for the people, there is something else preventing them, particularly what we have in one county—Glamorgan. This report is an indictment against the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, because it is no use their saying that they have received the report, but that action must be taken by the authorities themselves. The Ministry of Health and the Board of Education are themselves laggard authorities who continue year in and year out without


carrying out the obligations laid upon them. You legislate but you take no action. I agree with my hon. Friend. You send your inspectors and auditors to the active authorities, but in the case of authorities who do nothing at all, no steps are taken. They are allowed to go scot-free with no criticism at all. The representatives of the local authorities have made an effort, but the Ministry do not escape criticism for their inaction. The report does not call attention to the inactivity of the Ministry. Why, I do not know. Neither does it say anything about the lack of planning.
I was glad that the Minister referred to the hovels which have been put up as near pit tops as possible, particularly in Glamorgan; to pit-heaps and dust in the houses, causing discomfort and disease; to the planning of houses by local authorities which are dictated by landowners who want to avail themselves of every acre of land in and around industry; to the expenditure caused by subsidence in regard to roads, gas, water mains and electricity, the silting of river beds, causing floods and making the whole area in some parts of Glamorgan insanitary. The urban authorities in Glamorgan should have been commended for their foresight and courage in the efforts that they have made to deal with the housing problem with a falling population, with whole industries closing down, with reduced rateable value and greater responsibilities upon the authorities and unemployment staring them in the face, but with implicit confidence in the future that, given a fair chance, the potentialities of Glamorgan are outstanding. It is one of the counties which have added prestige to the country. The courage and loyalty of its people in any emergency that has arisen have not been surpassed and they are asking, and ought to receive, the support of the country.
I sometimes marvel at their courage in face of their disappointment at the small number of factories and new industries which have found their way into South Wales. I asked a question the other day as to the number of industries which have come into England, Scotland and Wales. In 1932 the number of factories opened in England was 606, extended 156, and closed 376. In Wales 10 were opened, eight extended, and five closed. In 1936, 508 were opened in England, 175 ex-

tended, and 376 closed. In the whole of Wales five were opened, one extended and three closed. In 1937, 506 factories were opened in England, 231 extended, and 345 closed. In Wales there were 13 opened, three extended, and two closed.
The people of Wales have asked, have pleaded for a Cabinet Minister or a Cabinet Committee to deal with the problems which affect Wales. We have been unsuccessful. Have we been denied because we have endeavoured to reason with the Government? Have we been denied because we love peace and persuasion? We have been denied what we are entitled to get from the Government. We have asked for a Secretary of State, for a Cabinet Committee. A conference of local authorities was held some time ago at which the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour asked for someone in the Cabinet to deal with the problems of Wales, a Minister of Cabinet rank who would be able to represent the views and aspirations and demands of Wales in the inner circle of the Cabinet. The medical officer of health for the County of Glamorgan, Dr. Colston Williams, has continuously called attention to the conditions which exist. I have a copy of his report for last year with me. He says:
The statistics for 1937 are 513 deaths from phthisis as against 503 for last year, and 106 deaths from other forms of tuberculosis against 107 last year.… There is no reason to suppose that this is any more than a temporary check due to unfavourable economic conditions which depress the nutrition level of so many families. This is one of the important, if not the most important factor in the problem, and it can be but little affected by social and medical services. The level of real wages and the amount of unemployment vitally affect the public health …Those sections of our working population not in receipt of wages sufficient for adequate nutrition are at extra risk of infection. …The medical service is conditioned by the general social state of the community and it cannot of itself remedy such things as low wage levels. Their persistence will require hospital service, their improvement will diminish it. Tuberculosis is only one of many things with claims on public expenditure, and can only expect to obtain its appropriate share of the public health budget. …The heavy incidence and mortality of pulmonary phthisis among young females in the 15 to 35 age group continue to be a marked feature in the statistics
That is an indictment against the Government. The public health committee of the County of Glamorgan has spent enormous time in trying to cope with existing evils with the money which is provided. Much more could have been


done if they had had more money. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the block grant. We appreciate everything that has been done, we appreciate every penny of assistance that has been given us, and I want to pay a tribute to the officials of the Department who have tried to meet us as far as they are allowed. We have lost in the county of Glamorgan itself, according to this report, 100,000 of the population in the last six or seven years, and we are losing in child population 1,000 per year, which is to continue up to 1944 according to the estimates that have been made. We are providing milk in our schools free to all who cannot afford to pay. Out of 352 schools we provide milk in 350, but that is not enough. We ought to be providing not only milk but dinners as well for the children attending the schools.
There is no hope, to my mind, unless we can make provision for good square meals for these children. Their parents cannot afford it. In our secondary schools we are providing dinners at 4d., 5d. and 6d. per meal to those who can afford to pay, but where the earnings are below a certain amount they get free dinners. There is a marked difference in the children who get dinners at school and those children who are supplied with milk. We are proceeding with the reorganisation of our schools and have commenced in two of our senior schools to provide dinners as well as milk. In these schools there is a very marked difference in the children who get dinners. I am most anxious that this should be done because the parents cannot afford to give them a good square meal.
Take the miners of South Wales. At the present moment the average wage of a miner is £2 10s. 6d. per week. There are thousands of miners in Glamorganshire who have to pay 5s., 6s., and 7s. for bus fares, and for rent anything between 10s. and 22s. 6d. per week. They have also to pay national health insurance and contribute towards medical benefit at so much in the £. They also contribute towards hospitals and various other institutions, such as blind institutions and deaf institutions out of the small wage they are receiving. We also make provision for the supply of spectacles to children, and are providing hundreds of pairs of spectacles every quarter because the parents are not able

to provide them themselves. That is the position, and something should be done to assist these people.
I have for 12 or 15 years been running a fund to provide boots for particularly hard cases, and I have collected some thousands of pounds. The subscriptions are falling off at the moment, but I have collected about £50 this year. The education authorities send reports from schools as to parents who are unable to afford boots for their children. I had a request this week asking me to sanction an amount for boots in the case of a man who was earning £2 15s. per week and who had nine children, seven of whom were attending school. He had been losing one or two days' work per week, and they asked me to sanction a sum of money for boots as he could not get boots from the public assistance committee or the Unemployment Assistance Board. They could not get boots from the educational authority. I said that if they were able to find two pairs, I would find five pairs. That is the position in our county.
With regard to public assistance, in Glamorgan the gross annual expenditure on public assistance for this year, up to last week, is £1,375,705, and the product of a penny rate is £10,296, so that, apart from Treasury grants, the cost of public assistance in Glamorgan, expressed in terms of a county rate for the next year is 10s. 5½d. in the £Hon. Members on these benches have on many occasions asked that this burden should be distributed over the whole country. At a time when the best of the men and women from our county are going to other parts, our people, who are earning such wages as £2 10s. 6d. a week, have to bear this unparalleled burden of public assistance. The number of blind persons in receipt of allowances is 900, with a weekly cost of £560, making an annual total of £29,120. The other day, I asked the Minister:
whether he will reimburse the Glamorgan County Council the amount paid to old age pensioners as public assistance over and above their pensions of 10s. a week, and accept it as a State liability for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?
He replied:
No, Sir. The Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1939; col. 1897, Vol. 343.]
This year we have in Glamorgan 6,741 old age pensioners, 4,136 women pensioners, with dependants numbering


2,235, making a total of 13,112. The cost to the county is £4.203 9s. 11d. per week. This sum has to be paid to people who are receiving old age pensions. They have to be pauperised, although they have given good services to the nation. It is nothing short of a scandal that the local authority should have to provide this year £218,581 to assist old age pensioners. The Government ought to be prepared to consider this matter and to make provision for it in the coming Budget. Considering the present circumstances of the local authorities, it is the duty of the Government to assist them in this matter. On hoardings throughout the country, the railway companies are asking for a square deal. The old age pensioners are entitled to a square deal. When the country was in need, they were ready and anxious to give their services; they have done everything they could for their country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not discuss matters which require legislation.

Sir W. Jenkins: I am saying that these people have given good service to industry, and they are entitled to receive consideration from the Government at the present time. I ask the Minister what he intends to do as a result of this report. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who is to reply, what he intends to do for the children who are suffering in the county of Glamorganshire and in Wales. Is the report to be implemented? Are the Government going to make the necessary provisions? These people are suffering and they are entitled to the best that can be given to them. It is the duty of the Government to see that they get it.

8.31 p.m.

Captain Arthur Evans: I am sure that no hon. Member has more sympathy for the old age pensioners than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but, after all, we are to-night discussing a report on the anti-tuberculosis service in Wales and Monmouthshire. Although I admit that no one has a greater right than the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) to speak on behalf of South Wales, I cannot share his view that this report is not only an indictment of the Government but of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I have read the whole report with much care, and I have failed to find

one paragraph in which any charge is made of a lack of efficiency on the part of the Government. It is clear that certain charges have been made against the local authorities, in a part of the report to which I am anxious to address myself to-night, but I cannot find one paragraph in which there is any criticism of the Government. In view of the fact that, as far as rural housing is concerned, the Government are prepared, and indeed anxious, to give a grant of no less than 80 per cent., it would be difficult, even with the ingenuity and imagination of the Opposition, to found a charge having any substance on that score.
I think the House welcomed the sympathetic intervention of my right hon. Friend in this most important Debate, for if there is one thing that is clear, it is that if a solution of this grave problem is to be advanced, it needs the co-operation not only of the local authorities and the Members of this House, but of the Government. There is one point on which I must disagree with my right hon. Friend, and that is with regard to the facilities for debate which are afforded in the House to Welsh Members. Of course, I appreciate that it is within the right of the Opposition to demand of the Government certain facilities for debating economic, industrial and any other questions pertaining to and affecting the interests of the people of Wales, but fortunately for the Government, all the Members who are elected by the Principality are not as yet Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Owen Evans: Most of them are.

Captain Evans: Most of them are, as the hon. Member says. At the present time, Wales and Monmouthshire return to the House of Commons 36 Members. Fortunately for the country, 11 of those Members are returned to support the Government, while 25 are returned to oppose it. Speaking on behalf of the Welsh Parliamentary party, of which I have the honour to be chairman, I say with complete frankness and sincerity to my right hon. Friend that I share the view that if it had been possible for this Government or previous Governments to have appointed a Secretary of State for Wales to protect our interests, this lamentable state of affairs would not have arisen in the very grave way in which it has been brought to our attention. I join


with my right hon. Friend and with the official spokesman for the Opposition in congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and his colleague Dr. Coutts on the very frank and courageous way in which they have tackled this difficult and complex problem. We know that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is a Welsh-speaking barrister, possessing a trained legal mind, and he has been assisted by one who is a well-known authority on tuberculosis and who, for many years, rendered distinguished service as an official of the Ministry of Health. No two men were better suited to deal with this problem in an impartial mind and give the House and the country the benefit of their findings. It is in that spirit that I propose briefly to examine a certain aspect of the report.
My right hon. Friend said he was anxious to hear the views of the House on the question of a possible reorganisation of local authorities—on whether, in the circumstances with which we are faced, it would be desirable or necessary to reorganise them on a larger basis, or in some instances and in certain senses, supersede them altogether. It is to that aspect of the situation that I wish to address myself. I do not think it is any good to shirk the issue and to content ourselves with the knowledge that the unfortunate conditions which exist in the Principality exist also in other parts of the United Kingdom. All Members from the Principality regret such conditions in other parts of the country as much as in their own country and the existence of such conditions elsewhere does not help us to solve our own problem. I would direct particular attention to the chapters in the report which deal with housing and sanitary conditions. These make the most distressing reading in this very sad volume. The hon. Gentleman who spoke officially for the Opposition said that the report contained an allegation that local government in Wales had broken down under the strain of health administration, and the logical conclusion was that this form of machinery was no longer suitable, in the conditions which obtain in the Principality, for dealing with the situation in an effective and efficient manner. It is well for us to remind ourselves of the exact charge that has been made against

the local authorities by the commissioners. They say:
It is obvious …that the local authorities in Wales have not taken the advantage that they ought to have done of the powers and assistance given to them by Parliament.… The failure …to take advantage of the grants made by Parliament seems more inexcusable when it is realised that the authorities knew how bad the housing conditions were in most of the areas
If that means anything, it means that certain local authorities are out to defeat the purpose and the will of Parliament, and I do not feel that the House is entitled to overlook that lack of efficiency on their part. The commissioners go on to say that authorities in certain counties
have fallen far short of their duties and their obligations. We find that they have had insufficient regard to their powers and their duties or to the advice which has been tendered to them by their officers. In fact they have failed in their trusteeship as guardians of the health and welfare of the people who have elected them
As far as the electors are concerned, I am confident that after an examination of this report and after the Debate in the House to-night, they will, when the opportunity offers, know how to deal with these gentlemen who have failed in such a serious fashion, in the discharge of their duties. But the question which we have to ask ourselves to-night is: What is to happen in the future? Are we satisfied that after the attention which has been concentrated on this vital matter, these authorities will be prepared to tackle the problem as it should be tackled? Are we satisfied that the machinery is at their disposal which will enable them to deal effectively with the question? Are we satisfied that the present system of a large number of local authorities in the rural districts with overlapping responsibilities, is one which can bring about a change for the better in a very short time, even when the personnel has undergone a change?
My right hon. Friend, in reply to a question from a Member of the Opposition some time ago, said that he had already called for reports from local authorities who have been severely criticised in the report. He said this had been done in order to give them an opportunity of stating their case, which is obviously right and fair. When he receives those reports, I hope he will consider seriously whether it is necessary for him to use the powers which he already


has, or indeed ask the House to grant him further powers, to scrap any unnecessary administrative machinery which exists in the rural district of Wales today and put in its place efficient authorities covering larger areas and deriving their strength and wealth from larger numbers of people. I have not the honour to represent a rural district but it is common knowledge what happens in these cases. A parish council, for instance, decides at a village meeting that something is necessary affecting the health of its people. It makes representations to the rural district council. That body also holds a meeting, and under the conditions to which attention is drawn in the report, the recommendation of the parish council, in many cases, is rejected. The matter is referred back, and another meeting of the parish council is held at which they decide to make representations directly to the county council. The county council, having regard to the fact that the rural district council has turned down the proposal, set up a board of inquiry; they send for experts and representatives to give evidence, the whole matter is sifted again, and probably in the end rejected, and nothing is done.
In those circumstances it is not surprising that keen and efficient officials, the employés of various local authorities, become discouraged. Attention has been drawn to this matter in the excellent speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and, having regard to the smallness of the population in these areas, we are entitled to ask ourselves whether there are not too many self-important bodies which could be abolished. While regard must be had for sentiment, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, I feel that in this day and age it is far more important in the interests of the health of the people, that regard should be had to efficiency, and unless the sentimental ambitions of these local authorities can be measured up to a degree of efficiency which will satisfy the House and the country then I am afraid the time has come when sentimental considerations must be put on one side. There is another point. If this were done the cost of administration would be lessened, and the money thus saved could be spent in the actual improvement of conditions. What is more important, the cost of these essential ser-

vices would be able to be spread over a much wider area, where the revenue from a penny rate is of a substantial instead of a relatively small sum.
I am advised that one of the reasons which persuaded my right hon. Friend to set up this committee of inquiry was that the City of Cardiff and, indeed, other local authorities objected to certain items of capital expenditure prepared for the last fixed grant period which were disallowed by the Ministry pending further consideration, and I understand that as a result of certain local authorities failing to fulfil their statutory obligations in matters relating to public health, contributing authorities in the Principality have had their burdens considerably increased —in the case of the City of Cardiff, which I have the honour to represent, by a very substantial sum of money. I mention this matter because it affects the City of Cardiff in a very real manner. Before I deal with that aspect of the case, I will draw the attention of the House to page 184 of the report, where it is stated, referring to Cardiff:
 We have been greatly impressed by the foresight, care, activity and public spirit of both the council and their officials. They have overcome immense difficulties and have tackled with vigour and success a heritage of bad houses: and mean streets left to them by previous generations. They now have a. city of which they may well indeed be proud, a public service second to none, and a civic centre, and parks and open spaces, which are an example, not only to Wales, but to other cities.
I mention this, because obviously these services have been built up at very great expense by the ratepayers of Cardiff City, who have done their utmost to improve the health services in their own area. It is somewhat discouraging to note, on page 277 of the report, that in respect of tuberculosis the city of Cardiff is the highest contributing authority, not only in Wales, but in the whole of the United Kingdom, paying roughly no less than £43,000 a year, or approximately £190 per 1,000 of the population. I suggest that there is not one ratepayer in Cardiff who objects to paying this sum towards the cure of this terrible scourge, but they have a right to demand that that money shall be properly spent by the local authorities to which the people of Cardiff make their contributions. The House well knows that under the scheme of the Welsh Memorial Association the city of Cardiff contributes to the cost of administering


services in connection with tuberculosis for the whole of the Principality, and while they have set an example of which I think the people of Cardiff have a right to be proud, at the same time they have a right to demand that their money shall be spent in an efficient manner and according to the will and the determination of this House.
There were one or two other matters to which I desired to address myself, but I will content myself with expressing the hope that my right hon. Friend and His Majesty's Government will be ruthless in dealing with those local authorities which, by neglect and inefficiency, are defeating the will and purpose of this House of Commons and, if necessary, not hesitate to introduce legislation which will simplify the machinery of local government in such areas and substitute a system more in accord with this enlightened age.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: I am afraid I am not able to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), who has taken upon himself the necessity of defending His Majesty's Government. I do not believe that this Debate has been carried on in any party spirit. I believe that on the fundamental issues and principles of this report there has been unanimity in the House, because no one can read this report without having a very deep feeling, not only of shame, but of anxiety as well. There is a Welsh proverb which says, "Hateful is the man who loves not the country that nursed him." To love one's country is to love the people of that country, and it has come with a very great shock to many Welshmen to know that so many of our fellow-countrymen have been condemned to live under conditions of which they are most heartily ashamed. It is no kind of consolation to Welshmen to know that if such an inquiry were held, say, in Cornwall or in Lancashire, the same kind of results would be given. The fact of the matter is that Welshmen are very proud of their country, and they are very sorry indeed to know that it is possible that conditions are such that it was necessary, for the sake of the truth, to have this report made. I desire to join with my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) on his courage in writing this report. My hon.

and learned Friend is a product of the county school system of Wales, and perhaps he is, in this report, repaying something to the old country for having given him his chance in life.
There are two main causes for this scourge which have been shown in the report—firstly, the conditions under which people live, and, secondly, the question of nutrition. I desire to make one point only on the question of the local authorities and to pray in aid some examples from my own division. Local authorities to-day have the statutory responsibility of providing houses, water, and systems of sanitation. I desire to take the examples of two small boroughs, first of Llandovery, which has been mentioned previously in this Debate, where a penny rate produces£24, and then Kidwelly, where a penny rate produces £28. How can it be expected that these two small boroughs should carry out efficiently their statutory duty, first of all, of providing houses, and then, as in the case of Llandovery, where they are about to spend £6,000 in providing water? I would urge the Minister of Health to send one of his officers down to this little town of Kidwelly, which has now provided 32 houses and has then stopped and said it ought not to provide any more. The tinplate works there has not worked since December, 1937, and I would particularly ask him to see to what means decent respectable people there have to go in order to provide their own sanitary arrangements.
In two other localities, Carmarthen Rural District and Llanelly Rural District, there is heavy unemployment and there are great needs. Does not the Minister think that there are any means by which the 400 unemployed miners in Pontyates can be employed to do something which the people in that valley have been trying to get for 20 years, namely, a sanitation system which starts in the top end of the valley and will provide a decent system for all the people in the valley? Is that impossible? Are these men always to remain unemployed and idle when they want to work? Here at their doorsteps is work which they know to be absolutely necessary for good health. Have we not arrived now at the point where the machinery of local government has not kept pace with modern requirements? Is the Minister now prepared to advise that a Royal Commission should


be set up on local government in Wales? I am not able to go as far as the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff in his almost sweeping condemnation of local authorities, but I ask the Minister seriously, in view of the examples which I have given, whether we have not imposed upon local authorities certain statutory duties which they have not the means and the capacity to carry out.
I desire to deal a little more fully with the part of the report which deals with schools and school children. I say without hesitation that that part of the report is first class, with one small exception at the end of the chapter, where my hon. and learned Friend has perhaps slipped up a little. After all, he has not had the advantage that the Parliamentary Secretary and I have had, of being a trained teacher. Otherwise he would know that the answer to that last paragraph is easily given. Apart from that, every word is that chapter is true. Indeed, it may be that from it will arise a Magna Carta for the school children of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) has spoken to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that he has created for himself in Glamorgan a memorial of which any man would be justly proud. Every new school is due very largely to my hon. Friend's energy and foresight, and this chapter in the report may lead to a Magna Carta whereby the school children of rural Wales will be better cared for. The first point I desire to make on this chapter is that the Welsh Department of Education should be sent from London; that it is divorced from its work and its problems; that the Board of Education are very rapidly converting the gentlemen in this Department into nothing more than glorified clerks; that it is utterly futile—and I make this challenge deliberately to the Minister—to have a Welsh Education Department in London where all it can do is to write letter after letter.
In 1925 two council schools were on the condemned list—Ammanford and Penygroes. There were also four non-provided schools—Cwmamman, Llanstephan, Cwmdwr and St. Clears. In 1939 they are still on the condemned list. What have the Board of Education been doing to allow these schools for at least 14 years to remain condemned schools? Let us be clear what a condemned school

means. It means that the Board of Education themselves say that the school is a menace to the health of the children who attend it. If the Parliamentary Secretary and I were inhabitants of Llanstephan, and we had to send our children to these schools, would he agree to send his to a school that has been condemned? He knows that the reason why these schools remain in this condition is simply that it is only the children of the working classes who attend. If children of all classes had to attend they would very soon be put right. I blame the Department for this. The Parliamentary Secretary is a trustee on behalf of the children. He has only to say, "If you do not put this school right I will stop your grant" Of course, there are other people to blame, but the Parliamentary Secretary is far too intelligent to run away and say, "lam not to blame; other people are to blame" I am using the illustration of my own county to show the number of condemned schools, about which no one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary. There are condemned schools in every county in Wales. I blame the Board of Education in general, but I blame the Welsh Department in particular. If they were stationed in a town in rural Wales, such as Carmarthen, they would not allow the children to go to these schools.
There are 1,398 children who still attend condemned schools in the county of Carmarthen. Soon 730 are going or have gone to new schools, but that leaves 668 still going to schools which the Board of Education themselves have condemned. Why not get the Welsh Department to-Wales in a place like Cardiff, where they could work side by side with the Welsh Board of Health? The only way to deal with this question is to have the two-Departments side by side in Wales. In addition to that there are 1,989 children in schools where the premises do not satisfy modern requirements—that is, seven council schools and five non-provided schools. I know some of these schools, and I say without hesitation that many of them ought to be on the condemned list. It is not as if the Board had not been warned of this. They have been warned over and over again and have been well aware of this shocking state of things, and they have done nothing. My hon. Friend is not going to


say that he wrote a letter. That is too ridiculous, writing letters to people for 15 years, because nothing has been done. Here is a report from one of his own inspectors in the year 1937:
The lighting in a number of schools is not adequate, and in a large proportion it can hardly be said that the classrooms are bright even on days when the sun is shining. The ventilation of the classrooms is in many cases defective
Another thing which I would earnestly beg the Parliamentary Secretary to put an end to is the use of backless desks. There are 67 schools in Carmarthenshire in which these terrible desks are being used. And here is one example of what these children in rural areas have to put up with as lavatories:
At three schools the offices are built over open water-courses and depend for their efficiency on the amount of water in the stream. In dry periods they can become completely insanitary
There are ever so many more examples of that kind of thing. I want to know what the Board of Education have done in the last 14 or 15 years to put an end to this state of affairs. It is gravely unfair to the teachers, it is a gross injustice to the children, and now that in this county they have a first-class director of education, I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do all he can to help the local authority to see that these conditions shall come to an end.
One further word I desire to say is that I entirely agree that the best thing that can be done for the feeding of the children is to provide a good midday meal. It is not expense that is going to stop it. I will read this extract from a report:
In one instance where soup has been made practically every day during the winter months for 10 years everything has been provided from school funds. Local farmers and parents supply the vegetables, meat is bought twice a week, but often free gifts of meat are received in the form of rabbits and 'cig-man.' The total cost for about 13 children is about 1s. 3d. a week
The best thing the Board can now do is to hasten this scheme of reorganisation. May I make one further plea to the Minister regarding differential rating in the County of Carmarthen? I know that that county has gone a certain way to put it right, but I beg of him that, if it is necessary to do away with this great injustice to the rural children of this part

of Wales, he will press the Treasury to give some grant to tide over the time of transition. He knows the whole problem, and he knows that, at any rate in the case of this county, that is one of the main things which has prevented the advance which the people are only too anxious to make. I join again with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff in asking, What are the Board of Education going to do? I beg of the Government not to keep the Welsh Department here. Send the Department into Wales, where they can work, where the staff can become something more than clerks writing letters and starting a long correspondence which simply comes to nothing. Let them go down and see the problems, for themselves, on the ground. If that is done, for that alone it will have been worth while for this House to have given its time and study to this report.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. O. Evans: I feel sure that every Member upon this bench who represents Wales will feel grateful to His Majesty's Opposition for having set down this particular subject for discussion. It is an opportunity which seldom comes our way, whatever the Minister may say. I want to assure him that Welsh Members are only too anxious to secure time for the fullest discussion of Welsh questions in this House. It may be right and proper to emphasise once more our view, as Welsh Members, that we do not get sufficient opportunities to discuss Welsh questions. By the nature of Parliamentary procedure we cannot get as much time as we might. It is useless to say that the Opposition have the selection of the matters to be discussed upon the Estimates when we are a very small group of the Opposition and, obviously, there are other matters which take precedence of questions affecting Wales. What we do want is a definite day, or more, in a Session when we can get the opportunity to give vent to our feelings and express our grievances, and I hope that this Debate will, at any rate, focus attention upon the necessity of Wales being given its rightful place in the consideration of this House.
About 100 years ago a blue book was published as the result of the labours of a Royal Commission which investigated the social, educational and moral condition of the Welsh people. That inquiry was conducted by people outside Wales


and they were not very sympathetic with Wales and its people. That report was stigmatised by the Welsh people and has ever since been referred to as "Brad y Llyfrau Gleision, "which means, in common English and translated, subject to correction by the scholars who are sitting alongside me," the treachery of the blue books" To-night we are dealing with another blue book affecting Wales and some of the most important aspects of Welsh life. It has been sympathetically produced by a son of Wales who certainly could not be accused of being unsympathetic to Welsh affairs and problems. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) is as keen as any Welshman that the terrible things of which we have read in this blue book are remedied, but we know that we have not the power or the authority to remedy them, and that we have to come to this House and ask the Minister in Whitehall to give authority to Wales to settle its problems. I am not raising the question whether we could do those things better for ourselves, but am pointing out the simple fact that we cannot remedy those evils without the consent of this House of Parliament.
The report has been published in the Welsh Press and discussions have taken place. The report has received much serious criticism on some of its aspects, and we welcome that criticism because it is the only way in which we can discuss things in a free and democratic country. It is the best way to get things done and, even if there were some exaggeration, according to some people, if it has been the means of drawing attention to these lamentable conditions in Wales the report will certainly have served its purpose. This Debate is serving another purpose, because this question is not only one for Wales, but one which affects other countries as well. There is nothing to crow about in those other countries, or to flatter oneself about, either in England or Scotland.
Take housing. Anybody who knows Scotland will be aware of the conditions in Glasgow, which is one of the premier cities of that country. Anybody who knows where and how people live in that industrial city will find those conditions do not exist in the industrial parts of Wales. Anybody who went to the Glasgow Exhibition will remember a replica of cottages which are to-day in existence.

I never saw in my constituency any cotage to match those which were in the Exhibition. In the figures given in the report we can get the true perspective of what has happened. On one page we are given the number of deaths from tuberculosis in Wales out of every 1,000, and the comparative figures are 0.68 in England, 0.74 in Scotland, and 0.86 in Wales. The difference between Wales and England is 0.18 and between Wales and Scotland 0.12. Those figures do not justify the tendency on the part of some hon. Members to take an attitude of rather smug complacency about this matter.
The other afternoon I heard an hon. Member above the Gangway, the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) asking a question relating to the improvement of sanitation on the Gold Coast, and he chose to take the opportunity of making an insulting reference to Wales on that occasion. He asked whether, if those sanitary measures on the Gold Coast were successful, the Minister would apply them to Wales. My advice to the hon. Member is that he should look at home and clean his own doorstep. The Secretary of State for Scotland has power to deal with such matters in a more effective way than is the case with Wales. Scotland has the great advantage of a Secretary of State, and of a Department of its own which gives time for discussion on these matters, and in which the affairs of Scotland are concentrated. We demand for Wales similar consideration so that we can tackle our problems in an effective way.
I would draw attention to another aspect of the report. Tuberculosis conditions in England affect the rural areas of Wales. Not sufficient regard has been paid in the report to the effect upon the statistics of tuberculosis in the rural areas by the deaths of those who have gone from those rural areas to England and who have come back again. Reference was made to the presence of tuberculosis among sailors. Within my knowledge in the last few years there have been sailors in this condition, particularly in Cardiganshire. I have known of cases in which tuberculosis has been contracted, not in Cardiganshire, but on the sea, in ships. The men come into port and they may die there, and are recorded in the local tuberculosis statistics. There has been no thorough inquiry into the statistics of these matters, although this is a funda-


mental question of interest to rural areas in Wales. In the last few months a girl came up from Cardiganshire to enter the nursing profession in London. I suppose she would be medically examined before she was accepted, but that was two years ago. That poor girl is now in a sanatorium, and if she does not get better the probability is that she will go down to Cardiganshire and be included in the cases of tuberculosis contracted in Cardiganshire. Every member representing a rural area knows that there are many cases of that kind which swell the figures for the rural areas. I am sorry that the report does not deal with that type of case and has made no attempt to trace these cases so as to get the true facts.
The emphasis in the Debate to-night has been placed upon aspects of this question which indirectly, and not directly, concern the treatment of tuberculosis in Wales, but I am not complaining about that. Far be it from me to tolerate the housing conditions which exist in the rural areas throughout Wales, but I think those conditions are getting better and less general. Houses of the type with a door in the centre and a window on each side are getting fewer. Speaking for that part of the country from which I come, I can say that those houses are now occupied by very old people, and I cannot think of one that is occupied by young people. The old people are still there, but the houses are unfit for human habitation. They have been a problem for the local sanitary authority to get those old people to turn out, even when they have a place for them, and the result has been that those people have died at a very old age. Not more than half a mile from my own house there is a house of that character, extremely clean inside, very comfortable and very warm, which was occupied by an old lady over 80 years of age, who died the other day. The result of that will be that nobody will ever go to live in that house again. These houses are gradually falling into ruins, because when these old people die no one else takes their place
But what I want to emphasise to-night is the direct question of treatment of tuberculosis. I know that housing and clean milk are of tremendous importance, and while I am on that point I would say that it surprised me, in looking up

the report that, so far as pulmonary or respiratory tuberculosis is concerned, it is said that it is due to the human bacilli, and has nothing whatever to do with the bovine bacilli, that the two are not transferable, and that it is the non-pulmonary or non-respiratory tuberculosis which is usually transferable from the bovine bacilli. That is rather a sad thing because I find from the figures that the number of cases of respiratory tuberculosis in Wales is about five times the number of the other forms of tuberculosis. Therefore, the clean milk campaign at any rate will not go very far towards reducing that kind of tuberculosis which is derived from human bacilli.
The reason why this report was ever produced was that there were difficulties between local authorities and the Association. The last report of the Association is a very bulky volume, and it is quite clear from that that the relations between the Association and the local authorities have not been altogether satisfactory at all times. That is the real reason why this inquiry was instituted by the Minister. That, of course, is a state of things which it is very essential to correct.
I should think that we Welshmen ought to be glad that the body which is responsible for the treatment, cure and prevention of tuberculosis is on a national basis, and not on a sectional basis, representing every county, and those counties doing each their little job in their own way, and not doing it very well. It is very essential that the relation between the contributing authorities and the Association should be of the best because, unless it is, the work of the Association cannot be as effective as we should like it to be. The primary object of this inquiry was to enable the Committee to guide the Minister as to the steps that may be necessary to improve those relations and to obtain better collaboration between the Association and the contributing authorities.

Mr. Jenkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point I would like to ask him whether the troubles that were responsible for this inquiry were not those mentioned on page 159 of the report, where it is stated:
The tuberculosis mortality rate in Cardiganshire is the fourth highest among all the counties in England and Wales


And further down it is stated:
The District Councils have been dilatory and pathetic. The County Council should have exercised a closer surveillance over the District Councils
I understood the hon. Gentleman was complaining about the inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Evans: No, I am not complaining at all about that. All I am saying is that the primary cause of the inquiry, as stated in the terms of reference, was to see whether the contributing authorities and the association were working in collaboration, and whether something should be done to improve their relations.

Mr. Jenkins: No, but whether the contributing authorities were doing all they could in the preventive work.

Mr. Evans: I should be very glad if the hon. Member could show me from the terms of reference how the cause of the inquiry could be interpreted as widely as that. The question is that of the arrangements between the local authorities and the association. The committee has reported specifically on various points because there were certain matters that were left undecided after a meeting of the association, and the committee was specifically asked to inquire into them. For instance, there was a question of a new hospital, and indeed the committee recommend that the new hospital should be set down in a position for the even distribution of beds. That was one point. Another point was the question of research, because the local authorities thought that too much money was spent on research. I want to say that one of the principal parts of the work of the association, in my judgment, should be the work of research, and I am rather sorry that the report does not deal more fully with the researches which the association has already made during the 26 years of its existence, because we should very much like to know what has been the result of the researches of the association into tuberculosis.
In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in face of the sweeping condemnation in this report of the attitude of the local authorities on preventive measures and on the improvement of housing conditions. He has not told us. He has said that he is going to have a conference. Has the

report under-estimated the difficulty? Is the problem inseparable from the problem of establishing prosperity in the countryside? Because, to my mind, all this matter is inseparably bound up with the improvement of the prosperity of our countryside, and if there were better conditions of agriculture and higher wages in agriculture then the question, in my opinion, would solve itself. Regarding housing, I have long since come to the conclusion that, so far as concerns the housing of the working classes in Wales and in all other rural areas, we can no longer expect private individuals to build houses for them, and we must rely upon the public authorities.

9.35 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I ask the foregiveness of my Welsh colleagues in the House for intervening in this Debate, which is purely a Welsh matter, but I feel that they will perhaps realise that in my case there may be special circumstances, because I have the great good fortune to have a Welshman for a husband. From my very close association with Wales, I claim to have made a particular study, not only of Welsh culture, but also of the social services which obtain in Wales to-day. I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) that the conditions which have been revealed in this report are not peculiar to Wales. I think that, if the hon. and learned Member who conducted this inquiry also conducted an inquiry on the same lines in England or Scotland, the English and Scottish Members of the House also might have cause for alarm and surprise. I cannot, however, agree altogether with the hon. Member who has just spoken that all the local authorities in Wales are free from blame. We all know of reactionary small authorities, which have always a member who indulges in one speech, and that is generally to refer some very urgent matter back or to move the next business.
But, while the report has directed the attention of the House to the gross neglect of certain small authorities, it is, in my opinion, a glaring indictment of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education. What impressed me most during the Debate was the extreme complacency of the Minister himself in the face of this alarming report. I want to know why it is that no immediate action has been taken, and why, in the face of the result of this inquiry, which occupied


two years, the House is told again that it must be content with another conference, further inquiries, and letters from the central government to local authorities. I want to know whether the Minister is not convinced that the accusations—for that is what they amount to—of the hon. and learned Member who conducted this inquiry are not sufficiently grave for immediate action to be taken. I want, for instance, to know what is going to happen with regard to some of the conditions in houses.
We are told in the report that there is evidence that the local authorities in some districts have taken no action in regard to the disinfection of houses which have already housed tubercular people. It is well known that, in a house in which a tubercular person has lived, six weeks after the death of the patient the walls of the room in which the patient died have been scraped, and the dust has been found still to contain virulent tubercle bacilli. The report reveals that there are houses throughout Wales which are never disinfected after the death of a tubercular patient. Is the Minister of Health going to content himself with another inquiry and leave these disease traps to infect their next innocent occupants? What is he going to do about those houses with regard to which it is stated that, in 104 beds, there were 104 phthisical patients, but, besides those 104 phthisical patients, there were 113 other healthy people—in other words, in a bed containing a tubercular person there was another healthy person, and in some cases two, becoming infected? Are we to be content with being told that there is to be another inquiry into these conditions? What of the Slum Clearance Act? These authorities were to report, we are told, on a certain date. The report which has been made is admittedly incomplete, but nothing has been done.
Most of us know of the conditions of some of these hovels. I share the view of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), whose views I do not often endorse, that the women of Wales are to be congratulated on keeping these hovels spotlessly clean. There is one paragraph of the report—the only paragraph which I will not endorse—which contradicts what might be regarded as the housewifely attainments of the Welsh woman. On the one hand we are told that she is

an excellent housewife, who keeps a hovel which is little better than a pig-sty in order, but, on the other hand, we are told that she is much too fond of the tin-opener when feeding her family. Welsh housewives are perhaps—and I say this after due consideration—are perhaps the best cooks in England and Wales; in fact, I believe their pastry cannot be beaten, even by that of the Yorkshire housewife. Therefore, I cannot believe that the bad nutrition which obtains in many families is due to Welshwomen using the tin-opener.
I have watched the reactions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education this afternoon, and, when the schools in Wales were being discussed, I hoped I might detect at least a blush, but I have detected no discomforture at all, and, because of that, I am duly shocked. Some schools in Wales are so bad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) said it would be better for the children actually to forgo their education rather than attend these schools. I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one very important sentence in the report, which states that the incidence of heart disease among the children is increasing as a direct result of the rheumatism which they are contracting because of the damp schools and the lack of drying facilities in the schools. This is not something which can be dealt with by letters, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to go down and make personal inquiries into these matters. We have heard some thing about milk. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. O. Evans) who rather dismissed the problem of infected milk. He told the House that he has made inquiries and finds that the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis is five times as high as that of surgical tuberculosis—

Mr. D. O. Evans: That is in the report.

Dr. Summerskill: He finds it stated in the report that the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis is five times as high as that of surgical tuberculosis. Surgical tuberculosis is acquired through the bovine tubercle bacillus, which is often due to tuberculous udders in the cows, and he, therefore, asks or at any rate implies the question: Why, therefore, should we worry about infected milk?

Mr. Evans: I never implied that at all. If I did not make myself clear, I am sorry. I only said it was a sad thing that the milk campaign was not going to do as much as we expected it might do, because, apparently, from the report, it would not ease the situation as regards pulmonary tuberculosis.

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with the hon. Member that it would not relieve the situation regarding pulmonary tuberculosis, but has he discovered how many children are dying every year of tuberculosis from infected milk, which could be relieved if there were a clean milk supply?

Sir F. Fremantle: I think the hon. Member means a safe milk supply, not a clean milk supply.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes. I think the hon. Member agrees with me that there should be only one designation of milk—safe milk or clean milk, as opposed to dirty milk. In the report it says that 40 per cent. of cows give positive reaction to the tuberculin test. This fact is borne out by impartial investigators in this country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has read also in the report that these authorities who are giving innocent children in our schools infected milk of this character are, in fact, callous. That is the word used in the report. I would say, criminal. Something must be done immediately about cleaning the milk supply of the country. Another aspect that has not been mentioned is the number of duties which many sanitary inspectors are asked to perform. In some of these small areas they are veritable Pooh-Bahs. One combines the duties of the collector of rents, the land agent, the building inspector, the architect, and the rating officer; and sometimes he is also a small builder on his own account or a hotel keeper. The House can imagine how the private interests of this official often clash with his public duties; and the amount that he is paid for his public duties is often £36 a year. In the face of these conditions, which I consider almost medieval, we ask the Board of Education to take bold action.
Might I also deal with the time factor? The Minister of Health may say that these authorities have not time to do it.

The report says that in one village the sanitation is in the same condition as when the Romans left it in A.D. 400. We are told that the Ministry is going to have another conference, and yet the medical officer in charge makes this statement. He says that sewage is still discharged untreated, in its crude state, into the river; the privies are still emptied into the garden where the pump stands. Sir George Newman drew a picture similar to that in this report 20 years ago.
Therefore, may I enumerate certain recommendations which, I think, should be immediately carried out? One particularly has to do with the provision of more beds for those who are suffering from tuberculosis. We are told that, because of a certain fatalism in Wales, the people refuse to leave their homes and enter a sanatorium, and that is why there are 16 per cent. of patients dying of tuberculosis in institutions in Wales and 34 per cent. in England. The reason is that there are not sufficient beds in Wales, and a medical officer cannot bring pressure to bear on any patient to go into an institution because there would be no bed for him. In Cardiff, the patients are ready and eager to go to a sanatorium, but, when the report was drawn up, nearly 500 could not find beds. I believe that another factor which militates against patients going into a sanatorium is the fact that immediately they go in the public assistance grant is decreased. Grants to the dependants of a tubercular-person should be taken out of the hands of the public assistance committee and administered on a much more generous scale.
I want to draw attention to the importance of early diagnosis. Perhaps I shall be accused of pressing for something which is impracticable, but I want the Minister of Health to consider what I asked him to consider in the Debate on the Cancer Bill. In Wales, in 1936, of the new adult patients found to have tuberculosis half were advanced cases,. and 58 per cent. were people between 15. and 35. There can be no question that the best approach to this disease is to facilitate early diagnosis. The incidence among the young women is extremely high in Wales. The young married women in Wales have between them and the doctor an economic barrier. One of the finest methods of preventive work that the Minister could do in order to-


reduce the morbidity and mortality rate in Wales from tuberculosis would be to include the dependants of the insured worker under the National Health Insurance Act. This is a very urgent reform, and one which in Wales, where there is so much poverty and distress, would be very welcome.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: We are disappointed with the statement we have had to-night from the Minister of Health. As far as I was able to gather, all he promised was that we should have a conference in Wales. He did not go in much detail into the cause of the disease or the reasons for the inquiry or the report. He spoke for very nearly an hour, and I think everybody will agree that he gave no hope at all, either to the people who framed the report or to the people in Wales, that they are likely to get any substantial advantage in the near future. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee and his medical colleague. They have both shown very remarkable courage in making the statements they have. The Chairman is a Welshman, a son of Wales, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) has told us, and he has shown courage in writing quite plainly for the world to see what he considers to be the serious state of things in his country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan has rather tried, I think, to minimise the report and to take away some of its importance. He referred to the question of bovine tuberculosis and said, "it is only one in five of the people who suffer from bovine tuberculosis" That is said in the report, but even that is a substantial reason for ensuring clean milk. That is of very considerable importance. We have not given as much attention to the disease as I would have liked to have been given to-day.
We ought to ask ourselves whether or not the disease can be prevented. That is an important question. From all the knowledge that medical science has been able to gather and pass on to us, it is perfectly clear that the disease can be prevented. I remember reading a paper delivered at Oxford by Dr. Powell, Chief Medical Officer of the Welsh National Memorial, in the latter part of last year. He complimented the county of Oxfordshire upon the fact that they had had

only 51 deaths during the course of the previous year, but he added, "You are one of the counties with the lowest death rate in the whole of this country, but lest you should rest on your laurels, you ought not to be contented until you have saved the 51 lives that you are losing every year, and that is possible."
We have discussed this report with regard to Wales to-day and we are bound, I think, to arrive at two general conclusions. One is, that the Ministry of Health, the Board of Education, and the local authorities are responsible for bad houses, for the lack of pure water supplies and for the bad and dangerous schools that exist in Wales at the present time. We are losing a large number of lives in consequence of this disease being allowed to have full play, as it has at the present time in Wales. During the eight years from 1930 to 1937, inclusive, we lost 19,408 lives in Wales as a consequence of this disease—lives which could have been saved according to the hon. Gentleman who has medical knowledge and has spoken in the course of this Debate. Why have they not been saved? Why have these schools not been put into a proper condition, and why have not the local authorities provided houses?
Do the Ministry of Health say that they had no knowledge of the housing conditions in these areas prior to the inquiry? The inquiry was set up in September, 1937, practically 18 months ago. We have now got the report, and we are having a Debate upon it to-night, but the Minister of Health cannot tell me or the House that the Welsh Board of Health had not informed the Ministry of Health that houses were in a very bad condition in these areas, were dangerous and were producing tuberculosis and other diseases as well. If that be so, why has the Ministry of Health—the present Minister of Health has not been in his post very long—wasted all this time until we get a report of this kind? Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education suggest that he has no knowledge of the wretched type of schools that are described in this report? Has the Welsh Board of Education had no knowledge of the condition? We know perfectly well that the present conditions have existed for many years, and that there has been every opportunity for the


Board of Education using the lever of the grant in order to compel these authorities to provide buildings that might have been regarded safe for the children. Why have not they taken that step?
The position to-day is very bad indeed. The inquiry came about because of a difference of opinion between the local authorities and the governing body of the Welsh National Memorial Association. The Welsh Memorial Association put certain items into their budgets. They wanted to increase their services. A conference of local authorities was held, and some of these authorities took exception to the expenditure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) has referred to it to-night. The City of Cardiff complained, for instance, that they were spending a substantial sum of money in trying to cure the patient made ill by the wretched conditions contained in these areas. It was that which the Minister referred to the committee for consideration. They went fully into the whole matter.

Mr. O. Evans: The Committee themselves gave the reason why they were appointed. It was stated that in July, 1037, they reaffirmed the estimate presented and resolved that the Minister should be asked to appoint a Committee to make a special investigation into the work of the Association, and particularly in regard to the proposals put forward in the estimate. The Minister appointed the Committee for that purpose.

Mr. Jenkins: It will be remembered that the Association was not satisfied with the amount of work that was being done generally, both on the preventive and the curative side. They were very concerned about the attitude of certain local authorities. They considered that they were not taking the measures for prevention that might have been taken, They also went into other matters as well. The Committee were very concerned that in Wales there was not an adequate supply of beds for hospital treatment. They referred to it in the report. They showed that in Wales there were only 86 beds, but that in England there were 114 beds, in Scotland 150, in New Zealand 190, in Canada 200, in the Netherlands 105, and in Denmark 190. We know perfectly well that there is always a substantial waiting list, and that it is impossible for the Asso-

ciation to give hospital treatment to surgical and other cases as the need arises, and that is because of the fact that they have not adequate funds to do it.
I should like to call attention to a comparison I have made as to the costs for treatment of tuberculosis between Middlesex and Carmarthen. In Middlesex the expenditure per 1,000 of the population amounts to £111 5s. 10d., the product of a penny rate per 1,000 of the population is £39 3s. 11d., the rateable value per head of the population is £10, and the rate liability for dealing with tuberculosis is 2.8d. In Carmarthen the expenditure per 1,000 of the population is £98 12s. 7d. with a rate production per 1,000 of the population of £11 15s. 8d., a rateable value per head of the population of £3 Is., and a rate liability in dealing with tuberculosis of 8.4d—nearly four times the rate liability that you have in Middlesex. This characterises the whole expenditure in Wales upon tuberculosis and other services, and the local authorities are placed at a very substantial disadvantage indeed as a consequence of that.
There are some very startling figures as to rate liability of different localities in dealing with tuberculosis. Durham has been depressed, poverty has played a very big role throughout the post-war years, and there is a low rateable value per head of the population. The cost of dealing with tuberculosis is 7.1d. Take some of the better-oft English counties. In Essex it is 3.8d., in Kent 2.9d., Middlesex 2.8d., Sussex, East 1.5d. and Sussex, West 1.4d. Compare that with some of the Welsh counties—Monmouthshire 8.3d., Glamorgan 8.3d., Anglesey 7.8d., Carnarvon 6.3d. and Cardigan 8.4d. There you have a much heavier rate liability in dealing with tuberculosis than anywhere else in the country. The result is that you have substantial difficulties in raising the money necessary to deal effectively with it. That is only for treatment. When you come to deal with preventive measures many of these authorities are not able to handle it at all. Many of the areas are small. The Minister pleaded that he did not desire to interfere with the present local government boundaries. He wanted to avoid it if he possibly could. Perhaps there is something in preserving local government boundaries, but I think it is, more important that we should preserve


life if we possibly can, and we must have regard to that.
There are some ridiculous local government bodies in Wales. Montgomery has a population of 877 and a penny rate production of £12. There, I believe, they have a mayor, four aldermen, 12 councillors, a sanitary officer, a medical officer and, when they meet and sit down to do business, about the most expensive thing they have to do is to mark a football coupon. They could not do much more. You cannot impose on an area of that kind, with such financial resources, any real responsibilities at all. They cannot carry them out. There is another town in South Wales with a population of about 1.000 with a rate production of £20 for 1d. There are numbers of others. There are 17 urban district councils in which the production of a penny rate varies from £12 to 45. There are 75 urban district councils in Wales and in 41 a penny rate produces less than £100. What is the Minister going to do with that? He has told us that he is going to call a conference. What is he going to do when he calls a conference? Does he think he can impose a heavy liability on areas such as these? I doubt whether he can.
Something has been done which helps a matter of this kind. It has been done in his own country. I was looking at the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services the other day and at the medical scheme in operation in the Highlands and Islands. The report refers in very complimentary terms to the system which is providing a medical service in that very sparsely populated area, a medical service which turns out to be a good one. It says that in the old days it was impossible to get doctors of a high standard to go there. Some were very good but in the main the good doctors took the earliest opportunity of getting away. Anyhow, since this system has been in operation I believe they have kept more doctors there, and apparently doctors of a higher standard. The report also says:
Geographical and other circumstances, combined with the facts of declining population and poverty of rating resources, make the Highlands and Islands a Special Area no less for the services of administration by the local authorities than for those administered by the central department as part of the Highlands and Islands medical service.
There you have established a system by

which you have overruled the local government areas, and I believe this House has voted a kind of subsidy of about £60,000 a year in order to maintain that service. It is one about which the Scottish people now talk in praiseworthy terms. What is to prevent something of that kind being done for Wales? Here we have a sparsely populated area, poverty and an exodus of population. The Minister himself to-day or yesterday told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) that the number of people who had left Wales between mid-1926 and mid-1938 was 378,700. One-seventh of the population gone. Some time ago the hon. Member for Llanelly put down a question as to the number of people who had left the countryside, the rural workers who had left the countryside, during the post-war period. The number approximately was 20,000. The truth is that the healthiest of the people go away; they are the people who leave the countryside. What has been done in Scotland in the provision of medical services for sparsely populated areas might well be done in certain parts of Wales.
I blame the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education and many of the local councils with a complete neglect of their responsibility to provide healthy conditions for the people. It has been going on for years, and there is not much doubt that it will continue if we have to depend only on the conference which the Minister has suggested. Here we have a problem which is just as bad as a Special Area problem, and it cannot be solved except by strengthening the financial position of the people in these areas. The Minister has referred to the block grant. I admit quite frankly that some areas have had an advantage from a review of the block grant recently, but some of them did not use the whole of it. As a matter of fact, great pressure was brought to bear on many of the councils in these areas not to use it. The rates were not high. Take my own area, where the county rates are 15s. in the £We got a substantial reduction as a consequence of the block grant, but the rates this half-year will increase, because of the disappearance of the population, by approximately Is. 6d. in the £. The same thing is happening in other areas.
It must not be forgotten that areas which have a declining population lose in


two ways. An area with a declining population and a declining rateable value cannot continue to provide a high standard of services. That is precisely what is happening in Wales, and I hope we shall get a statement which will give us reason to hope that the problem which is set out in the report will be faced by the Government. The Government ought to set up a committee of inquiry or commission to make recommendations as to what steps must be taken in order to create in Wales conditions which will enable the people to live in a healthy manner. As long as they have to occupy the wretched hovels of which the report speaks, as long as the children have to go to the schools of which the report speaks—unless they are wiped out and the Government are prepared to advance more money—it seems that we must go on getting a continuous increase of the liability arising from tuberculosis.
I have mentioned that there were approximately 20,000 deaths each year, which is a very high rate per million of the population.' It is very substantially in excess of the rate for the rest of the country. I would point out that in 1930 there were 21,569 cases on the register, and that in 1937 the number had increased to 26,433. That is a very substantial increase, although 1 cannot say whether it is due to the register being more accurately kept. However, there is ample room for steps to be taken to improve the hospital accommodation and to establish what I regard as being of tremendous importance, namely, some arrangements for after-care when the people return to their homes.
We know what happens. For instance, a woman goes to a sanatorium. She knows the conditions in her home. It may be that her husband is unemployed and is dependent on unemployment benefit or the Poor Law. In the sanatorium, the woman cannot forget the hardships of the home, and she returns before she ought to do so. She goes back to the bad housing conditions, and in a very short time she has again to go to the sanatorium. It often happens that a man who is receiving treatment in a sanatorium, knowing what are the conditions in his home, wants to return and try to work before he ought to do so. When people go to the sanatorium, what provisions are

there, under the present law, by which they can get adequate relief? If I understand the position rightly, before they can get adequate relief they must go to the police court and there must be some arrangement by the magistrates for sending them away; and in those circumstances it is possible for the public health committee to give relief. Apart from that they are reduced to the Poor Law level.
That is a condition of things that ought not to be. It is a condition of things that ought not to be imposed by this Government or by any other Government. If a man falls sick with tuberculosis, he ought to be given an opportunity of going to a sanatorium and getting whatever treatment may be necessary to cure him, if he can be cured, and he ought to be relieved of any worry concerning conditions in his home. The same applies to women. But that does not happen at the present time. It has been said that there is a certain reluctance to go to the sanatoria, and the Minister spoke about that. It may be that in the past people were reluctant to go to hospitals and similar institutions, but at present there is a long waiting list all the time. I have the waiting list for Wales for Saturday, 11th March, of this year. There were 335 people waiting, ready and anxious to go into sanatoria for the purpose of getting treatment. The hospital accommodation is not there, and there is no money for providing the necessary facilities. Already the local authorities are burdened with very heavy rates—rates that are higher than in any other parts of the country. Regard must be had to this fact.
I am not sure whether the formula under the block grants could be weighted sufficiently to meet those difficulties. Moreover, if it could be weighted, the richer authorities would complain, as they did on the last occasion, that it amounts practically to taking their money in order to meet the situation in the Special Areas. On the last occasion we were told in the Committee by the local authorities that the proper thing to do was for the Government to provide money from national funds for the purpose of meeting the situation in the Special Areas. I think one could say with a great measure of truth that the whole of Wales is a Special Area at the present time, certainly as far as tuberculosis is concerned. I hope that the Government will take steps to deal


with this problem and will take those steps early. If the Minister sits down under this report and takes no steps whatever are we to allow these people to go on suffering as they are suffering at the present time? Every year 2,500 of them are dying while we know perfectly well that many of those lives could be saved. We know that many of those who are affected with tuberculosis cannot be cured, but it is high time this House took measures to prevent the continuance of the conditions which give rise to tuberculosis and cause it to spread at such a terrific rate.
Imagine the condition of the children in one of these wretched schools which have been described. I went to one of those schools as a boy. It faced north and we never saw the sun. Apparently the builders never thought that the sun could be good for anybody. In the centre of a room nearly as large as this Chamber there was one old stove. If you stood near the stove you were roasted; if you were at a distance from it you were frozen. That school, fortunately, has been removed, because we have a progressive local authority, but many of the old schools, built a long time ago, remain in use to-day. I do not attempt to say that the conditions in my own area are perfect. There is room for a great deal of improvement in housing, in sanitation and in school accommodation. I hope the Government will take steps of a definite character without delay. If it is necessary to examine the problem, let them do so immediately and when they have found what is necessary in order to eradicate this disease from our midst, let them decide at once to take those steps. If the money cannot be provided by the ratepayers in those areas, then it is a liability which the State ought readily to assume.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am sure that most hon. Members welcome this Welsh day, and I certainly do. As far as my right hon. Friend and I are concerned, the Debate has been a sort of international with two Scottish Members versus a mixed Welsh fifteen, but although Wales beat us this year in the football field, I am glad to think that in this contest there is no winning or losing, because we are both

imbued with the same ideal. None of the speeches in this Debate has been delivered with a party accent, or if that accent entered into any of them, it was very difficult to detect. This is the report of a committee which started by being an inquiry into certain arrangements dealing with the prevention, treatment and aftercare of tuberculosis, and, as far as I am concerned, it has finished up by being a searchlight on the whole of Welsh local government and administration. The investigators have seen fit to comment even upon the school curriculum and the qualifications of Directors of Education and, for my part, I do not complain. I think the report is cheap at the price of £1,400, and I think it is a very disturbing report, although it is also a very challenging report. Taken in its proper perspective, I think that, as far as the schools are concerned, it underlines the whole of the present policy of the Board of Education, and at a time when our minds are so filled, as they are inevitably at the moment, with foreign affairs, it is an extremely wholesome thing that we should reconsider the condition of our own people.
Hon. Members opposite have asked for a Royal Commission, for a Secretary of State, and for many other fundamental reforms. Although this report started by being an inquiry into a specific though a very dangerous disease, it spread itself very widely, and inevitably the Debate has spread itself also very widely, but I think it is unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend—after all, the report is only recently out—to come to an immediate decision on the precise steps that he is going to take. Nor do I think he could do it, and he certainly could not, in this Debate, anticipate legislation, although that may be only a debating point. What he did was to show very great sympathy as far as the various points that were raised were concerned, point by point; he did suggest, as must happen, consultation with the local authorities. I should like to congratulate, on some very constructive suggestions, particularly the last speaker, whose comments on the Highlands and Islands medical service indicated some possible reforms in Welsh local government. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), whose speech was the only one I did not hear, was, I believe, speaking with some con-


demnation of the present machinery, but, I think it is well to remember that things have been happening, that even in this last year the new Rural Housing Act and the Agriculture Act dealing with veterinary services have been measures of progress. The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) came down on old age pensions, and the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) on the very interesting topic of extending insurance to the dependants of those who are insured. All that is important, and the House cannot expect me to discuss it in reply to this Debate.
I wish to refer almost entirely to the schools. In 20 pages in the middle of the report it is impossible to do very much justice to the school population, and I think the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) knows that very well. He has referred to certain deficiencies, but on further analysis he will have to admit that that is only half the story. All that I want to do is to put some of his points in perspective. You might imagine, from some of the speeches, that the whole of Welsh education, which is a very fine and ancient institution, was filled with schools which had impossible conditions, no lavatories, and the rest of it. The position is this, that there are 1,909 public elementary schools in Wales, and the great majority of them are in satisfactory premises. Some of the new senior schools are; models of their kind, and I wish there were more of them, but there is still a number of schools which fall below modern standards. I will give exact figures. There were in 1925, when the survey was made, 268 on the Black List, and they were classified A, B, and C. A were hopeless, B required substantial improvements, and C were those which required some improvement.

Mr. Hopkin: How many pupils?

Mr. Lindsay: I cannot give the figure off-hand. Our policy, as declared by the previous President of the Board of Education six months ago, was to clear off the remaining schools on the Black List within the next two years. There were 81 in Class A, 151 in Class B, and 36 in Class C. Since that time 54 have been removed from Class A, 78 from Class B, and 22 from Class C. That still leaves us with 114, and proposals for dealing with 45 of these are under ay. That leaves 69 to be dealt with.

Sir H. Haydn Jones: How many are provided schools and how many non provided?

Mr. Lindsay: I have not been able to get in the short time available the exact number, but there are in the counties of Wales 549 voluntary schools. Generally speaking, there is a greater difficulty with the voluntary schools. I will give a concrete example in a few minutes. Out of 1,909 schools in Wales there are 69 Black List cases which have not yet been dealt with, which is 3.6 per cent. of the total number of schools in Wales. Let me give a generous figure and make it 5 percent., for perhaps on modern standards there would be more; schools on the Black List, though, of course, the number of pupils in them has been steadily declining. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) urged me to visit Wales. She knows that my plans were all prepared to visit not only Anglesey and Criccieth, but many other places, but they had to be postponed owing to the crisis in September. I happen to be spending part of the Easter Recess in Wales, so that that will be remedied. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) referred to three specific schools—

Mr. Hopkin: Six schools.

Mr. Lindsay: I cannot go into the details of all of them now, but I will let the hon. Member know. In one case I have a report which says:
Premises unfit for continued use. New senior council school required for the area with transfer of juniors and infants to neighbouring schools. H.M.I, states that ventilation of cloakrooms should be improved. Managers disagree. Case discussed between board and authority and noted for two months

Mr. Hopkin: The school to which the hon. Gentleman is referring has been on the condemned list for 14 years at least, and more likely for 30 years.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member cannot say that. I have already said that in 1925, when the survey was made, 268 schools were on the list. I have said that all but 114 have already been dealt with, and that plans are under way for dealing with 45 others. Therefore, there must have been some progress. There is nothing new about this question in Wales or anywhere else. I will give a case in point to illustrate the difficulties. This


is the sort of letter we receive after repeated inquiries have been made; it is from a certain authority in Wales drawing attention to a passage in a letter from the Board stating they would be prepared to approve certain improvements "subject to an assurance that the managers have the necessary funds available" This letter stated:
The managers maintain that the Board have grossly exceeded their province in addressing the underlined portion of the passage to them as a body of responsible men; and they are determined to pursue this matter further by requesting a Member of Parliament to ask a question respecting it in the House of Commons at the earliest possible opportunity
I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants a complete dictatorship. If he wants a dictatorship, wants to destroy local government, he can have it. Time after time during the last year I have had blacklisted authorities—and I am not talking of Wales—in my room at the Board of Education. Unless you are going to penalise them, as has happened at Liverpool, unless you are going to withdraw grant and face the consequences, there is no alternative but to use your powers of persuasion, by speeches and visiting the authorities, as my Noble Friend and I have been doing every week during the last two years. It is easy for hon. Members to stand up here and say, "What a scandal it is that for 20 or 30 years schools have been in this condition." Of course, there have been such schools. There are parts of England where no school has been built for 40 years—there is nothing new about it—in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in Cumberland. The other day I was in West Sussex, having a 3d. meal at a new school.

Mr. G. Griffiths: You look well on it.

Mr. Lindsay: I was brought up on undesignated milk.

Mr. Griffiths: I will tell you what I was brought up on when you sit down.

Mr. Lindsay: The point is that this school is not in Wales, but in what is supposed to be a richer county—West Sussex. At this new senior school we had an excellent 3d. meal—cut off the joint with two vegetables, sweets and the rest —and yet within two miles of it there was a little school with all the conditions that

have been detailed in the case of schools in Wales. There were little children walking two or three miles to that school. I opened their little papers or cardboard boxes and saw the slices of bread with an apology for margarine between. That is going on not only in Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, but in other parts of this country. It is going on in the black spots. What is wrong is to get things out of perspective, and that is why I have tried to put this question of premises in perspective.
But we are not at such a great distance from completing reorganisation. That is the only answer; it is the only reason why certain schools are not closed or radically altered in Wales. It is not such an easy matter to remove a school from the grant list. A time-limit is sometimes fixed. That has been done in several cases recently. It is the effort made to urge the authority to "get a move on." But one has to remember that there is an obligation on the authority to provide alternative accommodation, and if they cannot replace the condemned school it is a very serious thing for the children. I see that the report says that it would be even better for the children to stay at home. I have my doubts about that. It is obviously only a short-term policy. But I welcome this report because, if interpreted rightly, it is the biggest single advertisement for reorganisation that we have had. My efforts in going about the country are nothing compared with a glaring report like this, if the lesson of it is learned, because there is no single question so far as schools are concerned raised by this report which would not be remedied by reorganisation.
I notice the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen), and I hope he will, at any rate, follow me, if he does not agree with me. In Devonshire or Leicestershire, where rural reorganisation is far advanced, none of these problems exist. All the problems of heating, water supply, lavatory facilities, playgrounds, transport facilities, mid-day meals, instruction in domestic science and gardening—all are solved. I am not saying that education is perfect, but all those questions are solved. We have been expressing our ideas about them in circulars and pamphlets for the last 20 years. In view of this report I am a little tired of being told that we are breaking up village life. If this is


the village life that is to be broken up, I am not sure that it would not be better to have it broken up in some places, but next Tuesday I am going to show a film in the House of Commons depicting rural senior schools in Devonshire, and I give a special invitation to all the Welsh Members to come to see it. What it does illustrate is that in an area where great advance has been made in the last 15 years, none of those problems is to be found, and that there is a real attempt to reconstruct the things which used to happen in the homes and which now, I am afraid, have got to happen in the schools.
I should like to make one very general comment on the curriculum in Welsh schools. I have a great admiration for what Wales has done. They have been pioneers in secondary education. They have produced many teachers and many preachers and they have produced a very lively, artistic and musical population; but I believe that has been done at the cost of elementary and practical education. That, at any rate, is my conviction, from what I have seen of Wales, and it is to some extent true of the whole of our educational system. The Spens Report says that our education system is out of step with the structure of society and with the economic needs of the day. That is the whole basis of those 500 pages of the Spens report. In the old days, in spite of what the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) says —and I am sorry she measured my interest in the schools by the colour of my cheeks during the Debate—that the old folk lore and the old home lore is gone. I have been brought up in the country, and I remember the days when people did cook at home. I do not say that there is no cooking going on anywhere in the country, or in Wales, but in large districts in England such as parts of Yorkshire, the old days of home-cooking are gone and the day of the peripatetic grocer has come in. The old stockpot is not there. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady may laugh, but I have been brought up in that sort of atmosphere. It has gone, and the result is that you have to reproduce it in the schools.
In spite of what was said by the hon. and learned Member, one cannot expect to be right and wise on everything in a report which covers so much ground,

but it is broadly true that the old approach is gone; similarly with gardening and rural science. I am engaged at the present moment with the Ministry of Agriculture in trying to work out a connected scheme of rural education which will give all schools in the countryside a rural colour and lead up to a proper vocational training, using the farming institutes, young farmers' clubs and possibly the new type of secondary school. Up to the present in this country or in Wales there has been no education of that kind in the countryside. I was very interested to see that in Carmarthenshire they are thinking of constructing a junior technical agricultural school, and when I was there I went out of my way from Swansea to encourage them. I spent at least five minutes of my speech in encouraging them to go ahead on those lines, because it is pioneering. It is interesting that those experiments are going on, and we in the Board of Education hope to publish before long an up-to-date report showing the progress which has been made in that direction.
By and large, all the statements in this report of the difficulties which the schools are facing in Wales would be solved by proper reorganisation. I do not underestimate the difficulties in rural areas. There are difficulties of transport, and difficulties with the voluntary schools, but if Leicestershire and Devonshire can do it, others can. It is a little bit too much to talk about low-rated areas. The product of a penny rate does not give such a fair impression as that figure divided by the number of children in average attendance, which I will give for various areas. It is 2s. 3d. in Anglesey, 2s. 5d. in Cardiganshire, Is. 6d. in Carmarthenshire, and Is. rod. in Pembrokeshire. Then, if you turn to England, you find that in Staffordshire it is 2s. 7d.; Suffolk West, 2s. 6d.; Cumberland, 2s. 5d.; Huntingdon, 2s. 4d.; and Lincolnshire (Holland) Is. 8d. The only thing I can say is that on the whole these are the counties in England which have made least progress in reorganisation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that there are other obligations, such as public assistance, which weigh very heavily on Wales.

Mr. Lindsay: I am not doubting it for a moment. In Wales there are several


factors which make it difficult—heavy unemployment, remoteness, and certain other factors. But still from the point of view of education there are very similar difficulties in the poorer parts of England.
There is one further point that is referred to in the report. The hon. Member for Neath, who has done such good work for education, was, I think, just a little unfair in his criticism. He said that we allowed the laggard authorities to go scot-free. I have a volume of letters here dealing with recalcitrant authorities. He is a very old and experienced member of a local authority, and I can assure him that we are dealing with them, and have taken up the question of solid meals with Glamorgan. These are the figures, which are very eloquent. In 1927–28 only 2,800 public elementary school children in Wales received free solid meals or milk. In 1937–38, 14,500 received free solid meals, and 68,500 free milk—in all 28 times as many children. In 1927–28, eight Welsh local education authorities exercised their powers in this respect. Now the number is 27 out of 30, including all the urban areas and 10 of the 13 counties. But the most significant figures are these. In 1927–28 the expenditure of Welsh local education authorities on these services was £7,000; in 1939-40 it is estimated that it will be £120,000. In the face of these figures nobody can say that very considerable progress is not being made. In the Estimates which I shall have to introduce shortly the figures for England and Wales of expenditure on meals and milk show an increase of £250,000. I do not think we ought to ignore what has been done, when we are facing the very real difficulties that exist.
There is one question which has been raised by several hon. Members, and I will be very frank and admit that I do not know what the answer is. When you have had a question and answer in the House and you have said to an hon. Member opposite that you hope that the facts that you have given will have publicity in the country; and when you have had deputations and have met the local authority in your room and made speeches at them; and finally threatened to withdraw grant, there comes a point in the relations between central and local government where somebody has to think out a new weapon. I am not quite sure what it is at the present moment. But

I can tell the House that, in spite of the general improvement I have mentioned, the counties of Cardigan, Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire do not yet give free milk. I have here copies of letters sent by the Board of Education urging them to do so, and I have no doubt that in due course they will take the necessary steps.
The directors of education have been referred to. The hon. Member for Carmarthenshire says that there are areas with directors of education who are getting very old. One of the reasons why nothing has happened in some places for 30 or 40 years is because of a rather old-fashioned approach by an old-fashioned director of education. He has pot used to his job, and has gone on.
With regard to milk, the county medical officer, as hon. Members know, has to certify the milk, but there are places where both pasteurised milk and T.T. milk are unobtainable; and, moreover, the question of price is sometimes a real difficulty. As the hon. Lady opposite knows in Anglesey the children pay 1d. instead of ½d. for a third of a pint, and the county feeds 2,000 children free at that double price. That is a very real problem, due to the fact that the milk is T.T. milk. Where that is insisted upon, there is no way out. In the county of Cardigan, where the local authority has been so remiss, a voluntary effort has been made, as stated in the report, worked by a number of people. I do not think that that is the way to provide meals for children. I am very glad that the people have had the initiative to do it, but I hope the local education authority will themselves take over that work.
As my right hon. Friend has said, one real difficulty is the distribution margin in remote rural areas. I can only hope that the Milk Marketing Board's regional officers, who are very ready to give assistance, will help the various local authorities to overcome this problem of remoteness. But I will say, in spite of what the hon. Lady says, and in spite of the adjective "callous," which she repeated from the report, and which, naturally, I had noticed—it is rather a strong adjective—that where there is neither T.T. nor pasteurised milk obtainable, the value of milk is so great that the children will on balance be in more danger of tuberculous infection if they are debarred from.


taking milk than if they take the risk and drink ungraded milk. I make that statement because there is a real problem in these districts. Moreover, it is to be remembered that any milk which the children get at home in such places will also be ungraded.

Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the hon. Gentleman where that quotation is from?

Mr. Lindsay: From me.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Gentleman think he is authorised to make that statement seriously?

Mr. Lindsay: I am, and that is why I read it rather carefully.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has no qualification at all to make a statement of that kind, I think that for the Press to repeat it is highly dangerous.

Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps the hon. Lady will know that I would not stand at this Box and make a statement on a question of a highly technical nature without authority.

Dr. Summerskill: That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman who was his authority, and he said he was.

Mr. Lindsay: I thought the hon. Member would see the point. It was a quick point, but I am quoting from my Department. I hope that is quite clear.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to convey to the House that he is making that statement on the authority of his own medical officers.

Mr. Lindsay: Quite definitely, and there are thousands of people who will agree with it. I said that this report was a searchlight on the working of local government, but I think it is also a candid comment on the working of our whole democratic machinery. I must confess to a certain impatience at the slow working, very often, of local government in relation to the central government. I have felt it in my own Department. But I think that what above all is very difficult to justify is the quite unwarrantable difference of treatment or of opportunity for a child because of the geographical incidence of his residence. It is not for me to-night to think out far-reaching remedies; the most I can do is to appeal

to civic pride in the local authorities, and to hope that the same spirit will be shown in Wales as was shown 100 years ago. A report was written nearly 100 years ago condemning things in Wales far more roundly than is done in this report. As a result of that, in 1889 a whole system of education was instituted, including secondary schools and the rest. I think it is not impossible that from this report there will emerge a new awakening of civic pride in Wales, a new relationship between my own Department and Wales, and a very real improvement in those matters which have been the subject of this Debate. The more I look at it, the more I think that what we are discussing is the condition of the people. This Debate may, I think, serve to bring the people of Wales back to a reconsideration of the fundamental problems that lie at the root of it.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I mean to have a say in this Debate, because I happen to have been born in Wales, and I have been interested in it from then until now. Not only the people in Wales are interested in this document, but also the Welsh people living outside Wales. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed too cocksure about his Department. I am glad that at the finish he cooled down a bit. He said that there were only 114 schools on the black list. But surely it is the business of the Board of Education to get the whole lot off. If there is one black-listed school it means ill health for the children there. The hon. Member said, "Do you want complete dictatorship? If so, you can have it." I did not think we had got into Germany yet. We do not want dictatorship, but we want the Board of Education to round these people up if they need it. The hon. Member said he would like to instil more civic pride into local authorities. It is not civic pride they want, but the money to help them to do the job. The hon. Member said, "I was fed on untested milk." He looks well on it. I was fed on no milk at all, except a little on Sundays in my tea. That is why I look so bad.
The hon. Member talked about cooking in Yorkshire and other places. I do not know whether he goes into the working class homes. When he goes to Yorkshire he goes to a bean feast. He goes into a school and everybody waits on him, but


has he ever been in the miners' homes in Yorkshire? They can cook there, and they can cook in Wales. My mother was one of the best women ever born, and she could cook with the best, but there were times when she could not cook, because the money was not coming in to buy the things for cooking. It is a libel on the working classes to say that they do not cook now as they used to cook. Our people cook in Yorkshire, and I believe they do in Wales. I am not going to sit silent in this House and listen to anybody on the benches opposite or anywhere else libel our people as far as cooking is concerned. They can do the cooking all right when they have the cash with which to do it.
I want to speak on the section of the report dealing with education. The Parliamentary Secretary skimmed it over pretty well to-night. I am referring to the recommendations brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to belittle the report. He said that the hon. and learned. Gentleman did not know it all. I do not think that he knows it all, but I think he knows a good deal about it. He was bred, born and educated in Wales and if he does not know anything about Wales, I do not know who does. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary does.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member will remember that the remarks about the cooking with which he disagrees were made by the hon. and learned Member, so that the hon. Member cannot have it all ways.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree, and I am coming to that in a minute. If the Parliamentary Secretary will read his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that he was making an attempt to upbraid the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. There are some damning indictments in this report. It says,
Little, if any, reorganisation has so far taken place in the rural areas
For what are we paying the Board of Education if they do not see to this job? It is their business. They are the heads of the Department and must insist that reorganisation comes about. The report further says:
There still exists in Wales a number of old schools, badly constructed, dark, ill-

ventilated, badly or insufficiently heated, with inadequate water supply, if any at all, primitive and most objectionable sanitary arrangements, or insufficient sanitary accommodation, no facilities for drying clothes, no facilities for feeding the children, and poor or insufficient playgrounds
When I read this I thought to myself that conditions were not as good as they were when I went to school in North Wales 55 years ago. There is another passage in the report which says,
A number of medical officers of health drew attention to the importance of warmth and an even temperature in the schools, and particularly to the importance of dry clothes, boots and shoes. They told us that the child runs grave risks When sitting for long hours in damp clothes and damp shoes
Many of these children have a long way to go. In one instance, the report states, a child had to walk four miles each way—eight miles a day. Eight multiplied by five makes 40; that child had to walk 40 miles a week to school, and there were no facilities for conveyance. The one thing that brought a kind of pride into my own mind and soul, and a certain amount of shame also, was that the people themeslves went short of food so that the children should have a meal at school. When children have to travel distances like this to school, there should be a meal prepared for them without their having to pay for it. The child takes a snack in a piece of paper or a satchel and there is nowhere to warm it. There is nowhere to have a drink of warm milk or tea. How do you expect them to stand against the Germans? There is an old adage that the child is father to the man. If you do not put a foundation into the child there will be no man when it grows up. The Committee do not think there should be any homework for the children. Neither do I. When they have been at school all day and arrive home at about five o'clock, that is enough for the day. I have been very pleased to sit through this discussion all day and I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for being so definite. I was very pleased to see, as he went from town to town, that he took no whitewash brush with him. He put blunt questions to all who came in front of him. I was patiently waiting for the report and I trust that some good will come out of it from local authorities, from the Minister of Health, from the Board of Education and from us, all of us doing our best for Wales and for other parts of the country also.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

CHINA (CURRENCY STABILISATION) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the establishment of a fund to check undue fluctuations in the sterling value of the Chinese dollar, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(i) any sums, not exceeding in the aggregate five million pounds, required by the Treasury to reimburse to certain banks any amount by which the sums received by them on the winding-up of the said fund are shown to fall short of the amount of the contribution made by them to the said fund; and

(ii) any sums required by the Treasury for the fulfilment of any guarantee of the payment to any such bank of interest on the amount of the contribution made by the bank to the said fund; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums receivable by the Treasury on the winding-up of the said fund"

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [20th March.]

Resolution reported,

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND).

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the manner in which the public trustee may deal with certain trust moneys to confirm the legality of certain dealings by the public trustee with such moneys and to require certain moneys in the hands of the public trustee to be paid into the Exchequer, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all such sums as may become payable into the Exchequer under the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." —[ Mr. James Stuart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock